Back to News
Judge Rules Against XRP Influencer Jake Claver In Defamation Case
By Exbasi Intelligence
Sourced from Coinpedia
A federal judge in Washington dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by XRP-focused influencer Jake Claver against content creator Zach Rector on September 2, ruling that Rectorâs 2025 videos about Claverâs Digital Ascension Group and Digital Wealth Partners contained no actionably false statements.What the Videos ReferencedThe dismissed lawsuit, according to reports, centered on three videos Rector posted alleging misconduct tied to Claverâs businesses. According to court documents, the videos drew on Claverâs own admissions in a separate New York lawsuit filed by payments processor Verivend Inc., in which Claver acknowledged fabricating emails, wire transfer confirmations, and a screenshot of a âVerivend wallet dashboardâ showing a false balance of over $1 million.Court filings show Claver also admitted to impersonating Verivend employees on multiple occasions to generate fake email threads.The RulingJudge Kymberly K. Evanson granted Rectorâs motion under Washingtonâs Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, the stateâs anti-SLAPP law designed to protect speech on matters of public concern. The court dismissed all of Claverâs claims, including defamation, tortious interference, conspiracy, and breach of contract, without prejudice, and ruled Rector is entitled to recover his attorneysâ fees and litigation costs. Claver has until September 23 to file an amended complaint.Rector and the Community ReactRector confirmed the ruling directly, stating the court found no false statements in his videos and that Claverâs lawsuit had targeted his free speech rights on a matter of public interest. âThe Court found no actionably false statement in my videos and ruled Iâm entitled to recover my attorneysâ fees because Claverâs meritless suit targeted my free speech rights on a matter of public concern,â Rector said.The ruling drew a strong reaction from members of the XRP community online, with several characterizing it as a clear-cut vindication of Rectorâs reporting and a warning against using defamation claims to suppress criticism within the space.