A federal judge in New York has cleared the way for plaintiffs to broaden their class-action lawsuit tied to Pump.fun and the Solana ecosystem, allowing a second amended complaint to proceed against Pump.fun’s parent company Baton Corporation, Solana Labs, the Solana Foundation, Jito Labs, and several named executives. The ruling does not decide the merits of the case, but it gives investors permission to add new factual allegations and legal claims based on evidence obtained after earlier filings.
The case, Aguilar v. Baton Corporation Ltd. et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00880), centers on losses allegedly suffered by investors who participated in meme coin launches on Pump.fun, a Solana-based token launch platform. Plaintiffs argue that the platform marketed launches as fair and widely accessible while certain insiders allegedly benefited from preferential transaction access. On December 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York ruled that plaintiffs could file a Second Amended Complaint.
How the case developed
The lawsuit was originally filed in January 2025 by investors Diego Aguilar and Kendall Carnahan, with Michael Okafor later joining as lead plaintiff. The disputes were consolidated in July 2025. Earlier versions of the complaint had already expanded the legal theory of the case by adding claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The newly approved amendment now gives plaintiffs room to add more detailed allegations and additional causes of action while preserving the existing federal securities and RICO counts.
At the center of the dispute is Pump.fun’s token launch process, which uses an automated bonding-curve pricing mechanism for newly created tokens. Plaintiffs claim that while the platform was presented as open and fair to market participants, favored actors may have had structural advantages in access and execution. The newly approved amendment is meant to reflect evidence that plaintiffs say was not available at the time of prior pleadings.
New allegations focus on validator infrastructure and transaction ordering
According to the court filings summarized in the ruling, the plaintiffs now seek to argue that Solana’s validator infrastructure and transaction-ordering tools associated with Jito Labs may have enabled certain preferred participants to purchase tokens at the lowest available prices before retail users’ transactions were processed. In practical terms, the allegation is that transaction sequencing may have created an insider edge during meme coin launches, leaving ordinary buyers at a disadvantage.
The judge noted that the plaintiffs acted diligently after receiving new materials in September 2025. Among those materials were roughly 5,000 internal chat messages reportedly supplied by a confidential informant. That timing mattered to the court’s procedural analysis: because the plaintiffs moved to amend after obtaining new evidence, and because discovery had not yet started, the court found there was sufficient justification to allow the expanded complaint.
Court says amendment would not unfairly prejudice defendants
One of the main issues before the court was whether allowing another amendment would unfairly harm the defendants. Judge McMahon concluded that it would not. The ruling emphasized that discovery has not yet begun and that motions to dismiss remain pending, meaning the litigation is still at a relatively early stage. As a result, the court determined that permitting the revised complaint would not create undue prejudice for the defense.
The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that procedural deficiencies alone required the motion to be denied outright. Instead, the judge allowed the amendment process to continue and set a timetable for the next round of filings. Under the order, plaintiffs were required to file the Second Amended Complaint by December 19, 2025. Defendants’ motions to dismiss were then due by January 23, 2026, with replies expected in February 2026.
Additional legal claims may broaden the scope of the fight
The expanded complaint is expected to introduce not only new factual assertions but also new legal theories. In addition to the securities and RICO claims already in the case, plaintiffs are expected to add claims under the Lanham Act and under New York state law. That could broaden the litigation beyond the narrower questions of token sales and platform conduct, depending on how the revised complaint is framed and how the court later rules on dismissal challenges.
Even so, it is important to distinguish between a procedural ruling and a finding of liability. The judge’s decision means only that the plaintiffs are allowed to proceed with a more expansive complaint. It does not mean the court has accepted the allegations as proven, nor does it establish that Solana, Jito, or Pump.fun engaged in unlawful conduct. Those questions remain contested and are likely to be fought over in the next stages of the case.
Broader market reaction and community debate
The court’s ruling quickly sparked discussion across social media, especially among traders and users closely following meme coin activity on Solana. Some commentators portrayed the lawsuit as a serious threat to the reputation of Pump.fun and potentially to the broader Solana ecosystem. Their focus has been on whether the alleged insider advantages point to a deeper fairness problem in how token launches are executed and how transaction ordering works in practice.
Others in the Solana community have pushed back on that interpretation. Supporters have argued that the litigation is being overstated and that it targets a specific meme coin launch platform rather than proving a structural flaw in the blockchain itself. They also contend that accusations involving validator-based advantages or transaction-ordering strategies resemble issues that have appeared in other permissionless crypto networks, including Ethereum, and should not automatically be read as evidence of systemic failure.
That divide in reaction highlights a familiar tension in crypto markets: the difference between open network design and the real-world behavior of sophisticated participants. The lawsuit appears poised to test that boundary in court, especially if plaintiffs succeed in tying platform marketing, validator behavior, and transaction-ordering tools into a single theory of investor harm.
What comes next
With the second amended complaint allowed, the case is moving into a more consequential phase. The next key milestone is the formal filing of the revised complaint, followed by a renewed attempt by defendants to dismiss it. Those motions will likely determine which claims, if any, survive into discovery and whether the plaintiffs can force defendants to turn over broader internal materials.
For now, the significance of the ruling is procedural but substantial: the class-action case is not narrowing, it is expanding. By permitting additional allegations tied to insider advantages in token launches, the court has ensured that Pump.fun, Solana Labs, the Solana Foundation, and Jito Labs will continue facing scrutiny as the litigation advances.