When a coin launched here collapses and buyers head to court, the defendants are the people who created and promoted it, while pump.fun stays off these filings. That is the pattern in the actual complaints: the individual-coin lawsuits name the creator and the insiders behind the token and plead ordinary consumer-fraud claims, leaving the platform aside. The one place pump.fun appears as a defendant is a separate, aggregate class action, a different matter covered on its own. These remain allegations that courts have yet to rule on, and none of this is legal advice.
The pattern in the filings
Cases over specific coins launched here are still few. The clearest, the $MOTHER suit, points one way, and the wider run of fraud suits over collapsed celebrity coins points the same way on the core question of who ends up a defendant: the person who created and promoted the token, named alongside unnamed insiders listed as "Doe" defendants who allegedly shared in the proceeds. What the claims are called varies from case to case, but in the $MOTHER complaint they are ordinary state-law fraud, deceptive-practices and false-advertising statutes, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, all consumer-fraud claims under state law. And there, the launchpad the coin was created on stands outside the case.
That last point is the practical meaning of a permissionless venue. Anyone can mint a coin on pump.fun while the platform refrains from vetting, endorsing, or issuing it, so when the promises attached to a specific coin turn out to be empty, the person who made those promises is the one a plaintiff can plausibly sue. The launchpad supplied the tooling, while the representations came from the creator. For the buyer's-eye view, what the PUMP token is and how to buy it set the context.
A concrete case: the $MOTHER complaint
$MOTHER is the concrete case, and it really did launch on pump.fun. On May 4, 2026, a putative class action, Kolbrak v. Kelly, was filed in the Southern District of New York over the $MOTHER token (source: CourtListener). The complaint names Amethyst Amelia Kelly, the performer known as Iggy Azalea, together with Does 1 through 50, and leaves pump.fun off the caption. The complaint states that the token launched on Solana on or about May 28, 2024 via the Pump.fun launchpad, and it expressly declines to plead the coin as a security.
What the complaint alleges is a gap between promises and delivery. According to the filing, the token was marketed as the currency of a real commercial ecosystem, a phone-service payment method, an online casino described as powered by the coin, and a luxury marketplace, rather than as a speculative memecoin, and the complaint alleges those integrations fell short of what was represented, that insider allocations of roughly a fifth of supply went undisclosed, and that market-maker arrangements were hidden from buyers (source: Burwick Law). The causes of action are New York General Business Law deceptive-practices and false-advertising sections, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Every one of those is a claim against the promoter and the people around the coin, aimed at the venue's users while leaving the venue itself aside. These are allegations; the defendant has yet to be found liable, and the case is ongoing.
Why the creator is the defendant
Part of the answer is structural, and pump.fun spells it out in its own terms and conditions (source: Pump.fun). The platform tells users that responsibility for the user-generated coins people choose to engage with rests with those users, that it acts as a venue rather than a broker, agent, or advisor, and that a buyer should research the creator of a coin before touching it. A venue that leaves issuance and endorsement to its users, and says so in writing, is a harder target than the individual who stood up and made specific claims about a specific token. That same framing, launchpad as venue and not as issuer, runs through the product map.
There is one important exception, and it explains why people think the platform gets sued coin by coin. In reality, the platform is a defendant in a single aggregate class action that bundles many tokens and adds the co-founders and other parties, on theories very different from the ordinary fraud claims above. That case is its own subject, with its own rulings, laid out in the lawsuits explainer and on its CourtListener docket (source: CourtListener).
Whether the native PUMP token is itself a security is a separate question again, handled in the PUMP-as-security explainer.
Where PUMP trading fits
Readers who follow these cases often hold or watch the native PUMP token itself, which trades as a listed market separate from any single launched coin. On BloFin, the PUMP/USDT Spot pair is the venue for buying and holding the token outright, and the perpetual sits alongside it for leveraged exposure. That activity differs from the launched coins these lawsuits concern, and it carries its own market risk.
Before placing an order, it helps to know what the position costs; the BloFin fee schedule lays out spot and perpetual trading fees.
Getting started with PUMP
The PUMP token trades on BloFin as both a spot pair and a perpetual contract, giving a reader who wants exposure a direct path to it. Looking to trade PUMP? To get started, you'll need to first create a BloFin account, fund your account with cryptocurrency, and navigate to the PUMP/USDT Spot trading page or PUMPUSDT Perpetual page.
Frequently asked questions
If a coin I bought here collapses, can I sue pump.fun?
The individual-coin lawsuits filed so far name the coin's creator and the insiders behind it, and they leave pump.fun off the caption. The platform's terms state that it issues and endorses none of the user-generated coins and places responsibility for them on the users who choose to engage with them. Whether any claim against anyone would succeed depends on the facts, and this article offers information while a qualified professional handles legal advice on your situation.
Who is actually named as a defendant in these cases?
In the individual-coin suits, the defendant is the person who created and promoted the token, listed alongside unnamed "Doe" defendants said to be insiders who shared in the proceeds. In the $MOTHER case, that is the coin's promoter plus fifty Doe defendants, and pump.fun stays off the caption. The same shape holds across the collapsed-celebrity-coin suits: the party who made the representations is the party a plaintiff can reach.
What kind of claims do these complaints make?
Ordinary state-law claims: deceptive business practices, false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The $MOTHER complaint expressly declines to plead the token as a security, so these are consumer-fraud theories rather than federal securities charges. In practice that means the allegations turn on what buyers were told and what they actually received, the classic shape of a consumer-protection case brought against a seller.
Is pump.fun ever a defendant at all?
Yes, in one aggregate class action that bundles many tokens and adds the co-founders and other parties on legal theories distinct from the coin-by-coin fraud suits. That separate case is covered in the lawsuits explainer. It stands apart from the individual-coin complaints, where the creator and the insiders are the defendants and the platform sits outside the caption.
Does the platform's permissionless model change who is liable?
It shapes who a plaintiff can plausibly target. Because anyone can launch a coin while the platform refrains from vetting or endorsing it, the representations that induce buyers come from the creator, so the creator is the party a fraud claim can reach. The venue supplied the tooling, while the promises came from the person who launched the coin.
Researched and written by the BloFin Academy editorial team with AI-assisted drafting. Case facts here come from the court docket and complaint in Kolbrak v. Kelly and from the filing firm's case page, with pump.fun's own terms for the platform's stated position. All litigation described is ongoing and every claim is an allegation that no court has ruled on. All facts independently verified against cited documentation current as of September 2026.
This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, financial, investment, or trading advice. Crypto assets are highly speculative and can lose value. Do your own research and consult a qualified professional for advice on your situation.