Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has drawn a direct comparison between Glock’s federal lawsuit over Connecticut’s new handgun restrictions and Ripple’s multi-year legal fight with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, arguing that both cases expose the unfairness of companies being forced to operate without clear legal guidance. His comments followed a social media post by attorney Kostas Moros outlining Glock’s claim that Connecticut officials have not told the manufacturer whether its redesigned pistols comply with a law taking effect October 1. Schwartz called the situation “grossly unfair” and wrote, “Ask me how I know,” later pointing to the SEC v. Ripple dispute when asked how the uncertainty sounded familiar.
Glock filed Glock, Inc. v. Griffin et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on September 21, naming Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin and state prosecutors responsible for enforcing the law. The company is challenging Connecticut Public Act 26-41, which takes effect October 1 and makes it a Class D felony to knowingly import, advertise, sell, offer or expose for sale certain newly manufactured “convertible pistols.” The statute defines the category around semiautomatic pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily altered and converted into machine guns using a pistol converter. Glock argues that its redesigned Slimline, V Series and Gen 6 handguns should fall outside that definition because the company says they were engineered to resist illegal conversion devices. Judge Kari A. Dooley ordered Glock to serve the complaint and injunction papers by noon September 24, gave defendants until 5 p.m. September 28 to respond, and scheduled a hearing for 9:30 a.m. September 29 in Bridgeport. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has defended the law as lawful and lifesaving, while the National Shooting Sports Foundation and other plaintiffs filed a separate federal challenge the same day.
Schwartz’s comparison refers back to Ripple’s years-long dispute with the SEC. The Commission sued Ripple Labs, Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen in December 2020, alleging that they raised more than $1.3 billion through unregistered XRP securities offerings. In July 2023, Judge Analisa Torres issued a split ruling, finding that Ripple’s institutional XRP sales constituted investment contracts under the circumstances presented, while programmatic exchange sales and certain other distributions did not satisfy the same test. Both sides dropped their appeals in August 2025, leaving the final judgment intact. That judgment requires Ripple to pay a $125.035 million civil penalty and subjects it to an injunction concerning future violations of the Securities Act’s registration provisions. Schwartz has continued to discuss the case since leaving Ripple’s full-time CTO role and is identified by Ripple as CTO Emeritus and an XRP Ledger co-creator.
The question of regulatory clarity also shapes Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse’s view of the stalled CLARITY Act. After the Senate failed to advance the legislation on September 15, Ripple said the bill had offered Congress a chance to create clear, predictable rules of the road, while maintaining that XRP’s existing legal position was not changed by the Senate vote. Speaking recently in Kansas City, Garlinghouse supported the legislation but argued that useful technology can attract users without congressional approval. He warned, however, that delayed rules could leave the United States behind jurisdictions offering businesses clearer guidance.
