A series of crypto firms had been taking on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commision (SEC). Basically the latest to attain so is Ethereum infrastructure company Consensys, which is counter-suing the regulator after receiving a Wells undercover agent earlier this month.

In a lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Texas on April 25, Consensys challenged the SEC’s determination that ether is a safety, topic to its jurisdiction.

The complaint additionally names SEC Chair Gary Gensler, and four other commissioners at the company: Caroline Crenshaw, Jaime Lizarraga, Brand Uyeda, and Hester Pierce.

Consensys published that it had got a Wells undercover agent from the SEC on April 10, stating the regulator’s intent to raise an enforcement action in opposition to the company for violating federal securities criminal guidelines thru its MetaMask swaps and staking products. Consensys has hired the identical attorneys which are representing Coinbase in its correct warfare with the SEC.

“The subpoenas attain now not correct learn data on Consensys’s acquisitions, holdings, and gross sales of ETH,” acknowledged Consensys in the complaint.

“They additionally learn detailed data touching on the aim of Consensys, including its system builders, in a lot of Ethereum Enchancment Proposals linked to the Ethereum Merge, the transition from a proof-of-work to a proof-of-stake validation mechanism.”

Consensys took aim at the SEC and Gensler for backtracking on their very hang prior statements announcing that ether is now not a safety, and failing to brand why the company now considers the asset a safety despite requests for clarification.

The company is making an strive to bag reduction on four counts, alleging that the SEC has acted in excess of its statutory authority, violated due route of, and violated the Administrative Plot Act (APA).

Earlier this week, the Blockchain Affiliation and the Crypto Freedom Alliance of Texas (CFAT) filed a lawsuit in opposition to the SEC over its unique definition of the vendor rule, additionally alleging that the regulator had violated the APA and changed into making an strive to “unlawfully put watch over exterior its authority.”