A judge in the US state of California ruled that $JENNER, a memecoin issued by former Olympian and television personality Caitlyn Jenner, is not a security. The decision came after allegations that investor Lee Greenfield lost more than 40 thousand dollars in the class action lawsuit that has been ongoing since the end of 2024.
Allegations against Caitlyn Jenner
Plaintiff Lee Greenfield purchased first Solana and then $JENNER tokens on the Ethereum blockchain in May 2024. In his complaint, Greenfield argued that Caitlyn Jenner heavily promoted the token using her famous name, and that these promotions created an expectation that the value would increase. In Jenner’s social media posts, there is an image created with artificial intelligence, wearing a “JENNER ETH” t-shirt and carrying an American flag, and the words “Let’s make everyone rich!” The message attracted attention.
Caitlyn Jenner is widely known in the US public with her Olympic past and her appearance in reality shows. It started to make a name for itself in the field of cryptocurrency with its Token project.
Highlights of the judicial process
Jenner’s manager Sophia Hutchins was also among those complained about in the case. However, Hutchins died in July 2025. In court, the defense side stated that Ethereum-based $JENNER does not qualify as a security and Hutchins cannot be considered a legal seller.
Justice Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. cited the securities test defined in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1946 Howey Case. Howey test; It is based on directing the invested capital to a joint venture with the expectation of profit arising from the efforts of others. Evaluating this test, the judge accepted that Greenfield invested money to buy tokens, but ruled that the “joint venture” condition, which brings the investment together with other investors, was not met.
In his decision, the judge stated, “When the allegations made in the complaint are evaluated collectively, the claim that the investors created a pool in order to share profits and losses, create capital or provide resources for an investment other than coins does not seem reasonable. Therefore, a joint venture has not been established on the basis of horizontal partnership.”
Blumenfeld also stated that there was neither a horizontal nor a vertical partnership bond between the investors, therefore the joint venture requirement was not met. Thus, Howey saw no need to go into the third stage of his test, which was whether the profit expectation depended on Jenner’s efforts.
State-level allegations and continuation of litigation
In the decision, it was stated that after the federal securities violation claim is rejected, other state-based claims can be evaluated by California courts. In this case, it appears that Greenfield can continue his application in state courts for complaints that are outside the federal scope.
In his decision regarding this part of the case, the judge included the evaluation: “Due to the absence of the joint venture element, there is no need for another examination.”
As a result of the case regarding Caitlyn Jenner’s token, different evaluations continue to emerge in American courts regarding whether cryptocurrencies can be securities or not. This decision can be cited as a precedent in lawsuits to be filed against similar projects.
