The pump.fun class action: what the 31 August 2026 ruling decided

pump.fun’s operator and founders are defendants in a proposed class action in federal court in New York. On 31 August 2026 the judge ruled on their motions to dismiss. Secondary coverage of that ruling varies; this page is written from the court’s own 79-page opinion (docket entry 184) and the docket, both public on CourtListener.

This page is independent and unofficial, and it isn’t legal advice. Nothing here suggests anyone is liable: the case is at an early stage and the claims are allegations.

The case

• Name: Aguilar v. Baton Corporation Ltd. d/b/a Pump.Fun, No. 1:25-cv-00880-CM, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Colleen McMahon.
• Filed: 30 January 2025, consolidated on 25 June 2025 with Carnahan v. Baton Corporation Ltd., No. 1:25-cv-00490, filed on 16 January 2025.
• Plaintiffs: Diego Aguilar, Kendall Carnahan and Michael Okafor, for themselves and a proposed class.
• Defendants now: Baton Corporation Ltd. (pump.fun’s operator), Alon Cohen, Dylan Kerler and Noah Bernhard Hugo Tweedale, plus 25 unnamed “Lead KOL Doe” promoters who haven’t been identified or served.

What’s alleged. The complaint says pump.fun ran a “pump and dump” system in which insiders got early positions in selected tokens and paid promoters (KOLs) to draw in retail buyers, and that Solana-linked defendants supported it. The plaintiffs estimate retail traders lost $4 billion to $5.5 billion trading pump.fun tokens. These are the plaintiffs’ allegations, not findings.

What the 31 August 2026 ruling decided

Claim	Against	Result
Counts I–II: RICO and RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §1962(c), (d))	Baton, Cohen, Kerler, Tweedale	Survives, but only for plaintiffs Carnahan and Okafor
Counts I–II: RICO	Solana Labs, Solana Foundation, Yakovenko, Gokal, Albert, Federa, Liu	Dismissed
All of Aguilar’s claims	every moving defendant	Dismissed: no domestic RICO injury pleaded
Counts III–IV: Securities Act §5, §12(a)(1), §15	Baton and founders	Dismissed: on the merits for FRED and GRIFFAIN, for lack of class standing on the other 18 tokens
Count V: unjust enrichment	everyone	Dismissed

The court said every dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is with prejudice, meaning those claims can’t simply be refiled in this case.

Why the RICO claims survived

RICO requires a pattern of “racketeering activity”. The plaintiffs offered four kinds; the court accepted two against the Baton defendants and rejected the rest:

• Wire fraud: accepted. The court found specific enough statements by Cohen on X, including calling pump.fun an “unruggable fair launch platform” (25 September 2024) and “as much of an even playing field as it gets” (4 October 2024), and found the allegations against Kerler and Tweedale sufficient at this stage.
• Unlicensed money transmission: accepted against Baton. The complaint says buyers sent SOL to pump.fun’s bonding-curve contract and got tokens back, and sellers the reverse, repeatedly and for a fee, without FinCEN registration. The court held this “plausibly describe[s] money transmission” under a 2026 Second Circuit decision.
• Illegal gambling: rejected for everyone. The court held the trades aren’t “gambling” under New York law: buying speculative assets is not a bet on a future contingent event in the statutory sense, however much it resembles gambling in everyday speech.
• Solana defendants: rejected. Supplying blockchain software and network infrastructure isn’t operating pump.fun’s business, and the complaint didn’t plausibly show they knew of the alleged deception.

Why the securities claims failed

The plaintiffs argued the tokens were “investment contracts” under the Howey test. The court disagreed for FRED and GRIFFAIN, the two tokens the named plaintiffs bought: there was no common enterprise. Buyers’ money wasn’t pooled, and Baton earned its trading fee whether buyers made or lost money, so its fortunes didn’t rise and fall with theirs. Claims on the other 18 tokens failed because no named plaintiff bought them.

What has happened since

Date	Docket	Event
31 Aug 2026	184	Opinion; plaintiffs ordered to show cause by 10 Sep on the unserved Lead KOL Doe defendants
10 Sep 2026	187	Plaintiffs respond to the show-cause order
11 Sep 2026	188	Extension granted; Baton and the founders’ answer due 15 Oct
15 Oct 2026	190	Answer to the amended complaint filed

With an answer filed, the surviving RICO claims move toward discovery. The docket’s last filing as of 4 November 2026 is the 15 October answer. Class certification hasn’t been decided.

Earlier milestones

• 23 Jul 2025: the amended complaint added the Solana and Jito defendants and the RICO claims. The Jito defendants were later voluntarily dismissed.
• 9 Dec 2025: the court allowed a second amended complaint after a confidential informant gave plaintiffs’ counsel nearly 5,000 internal chat messages.
• 8 Jan 2026: second amended complaint filed; motions to dismiss followed on 6 March 2026.

What it means for users

Nothing changes in how pump.fun works today. The ruling isn’t a verdict, and either side could still win. It is a reminder that pump.fun’s own marketing (“fair launch”) is now a contested claim in court. Read is pump.fun safe and how the bonding curve works for the mechanics behind the allegations.