Ripple CTO Emeritus says truthful XRP promotion is protected commercial speech, while the Kansas Athletics partnership revives scrutiny of crypto marketing aimed at students and younger fans.
Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has argued that truthful advertising for XRP is protected by the First Amendment, pushing back after critics called for tighter limits on crypto promotion in college sports. The debate intensified after the University of Kansas athletics program agreed to place XRP branding on team uniforms under a multi-year partnership with Ripple. In a July 15 post on X, Schwartz said governments cannot broadly suppress advertising for lawful products simply because officials think consumers might make poor decisions. He framed the issue as one of commercial speech, citing Supreme Court rulings that struck down restrictions on lawful alcohol and gambling advertising. He wrote: “The United States has the First Amendment. If you want to restrict or can speech, you need to find some exception it fits into. I don't think there is one here. See the cases I cited including one involving liquor and one involving gambling.” His legal argument did not claim that every limit on XRP promotion would be unconstitutional. Under the Central Hudson framework, commercial speech is protected when it concerns lawful activity and is not misleading, but governments may still impose properly tailored restrictions that directly serve a substantial public interest. Kansas Athletics announced the Ripple partnership on July 8. The XRP logo is set to appear on uniforms across the university’s athletic programs, which Kansas said makes it the first cryptocurrency jersey patch used across a major college athletics program. The agreement also includes venue, digital and event branding, while Ripple will fund financial and technology education programs for student-athletes and the broader campus community. The controversy also draws on XRP’s legal history. Three years after a split federal court ruling in the SEC case against Ripple, the asset’s status remains more nuanced than a blanket claim that it is outside financial regulation. The court held that Ripple’s programmatic XRP sales did not qualify as securities transactions under the circumstances examined, while certain institutional sales violated securities laws. The case ended in 2025 with a $125 million penalty and an injunction left in place.