Coinbase is escalating its legal challenge against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, aiming to force the release of critical documents related to crypto-related bank restrictions. The revived lawsuit spotlights mounting tensions between crypto firms and federal regulators over transparency and industry access.

Coinbase’s FOIA Case Reignited

The exchange is pressing the FDIC for disclosure on past crypto-related directives.

Coinbase has formally filed a motion to resume its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FDIC in the D.C. District Court. The core allegation: the agency continues to withhold key records involving its communication with banks about cryptocurrency services. The dispute centers around so-called “pause letters”—documents that purportedly advised financial institutions to halt or scale back crypto engagement.

The lawsuit, initially paused in February 2025, was put on hold when newly appointed FDIC Chairman Travis Hill promised to increase agency transparency. Despite improved communication, Coinbase contends that the FDIC still fails to fully comply with FOIA obligations.

Transparency vs Enforcement: A Tense Legal Balance

Coinbase argues that regulators are resisting public oversight under the guise of discretion.

Paul Grewal, Coinbase’s Chief Legal Officer, expressed frustration with the ongoing opacity. Although the FDIC’s cooperation has improved under new leadership, he asserts that critical information remains inaccessible. The documents could shed light on whether U.S. financial regulators coordinated efforts to limit crypto access to banking infrastructure—a theory commonly referred to as “Operation Chokepoint 2.0.”

Coinbase believes that unearthing this information is vital to establishing a fair regulatory environment for digital assets. The FDIC has two weeks to formally respond to Coinbase’s motion.

FDIC’s Evolving Crypto Policy

Regulatory shifts suggest a more open—but still cautious—stance toward crypto.

Recently, the FDIC reversed a key policy, announcing that banks no longer need prior approval to engage in legally permitted crypto activities—so long as risk management standards are met. This marks a significant departure from the more restrictive tone of previous years and hints at a broader regulatory thaw.

However, Coinbase argues that despite policy shifts, the lack of transparency around past directives still harms the credibility of the regulatory process. The company wants concrete documentation to verify whether past decisions were part of a coordinated campaign to discourage crypto innovation.

Operation Chokepoint 2.0: Fact or Fiction?

Coinbase seeks to prove that regulators used informal pressure to hinder crypto’s growth.

The central claim behind Coinbase’s lawsuit revolves around the alleged existence of “Operation Chokepoint 2.0.” According to this theory, financial regulators informally pressured banks to distance themselves from crypto-related clients, using letters or behind-the-scenes influence instead of formal bans.

Documents already obtained by Coinbase suggest that such pressure may have existed. If substantiated, this could spark new debates over the role of regulators in shaping market access—and whether certain industries, like crypto, are being unfairly targeted.

What Comes Next

Legal resolution or political flashpoint? All eyes are on the FDIC’s response.

The FDIC’s forthcoming reply to Coinbase’s motion could determine whether the case proceeds to court or is resolved through negotiations. More broadly, this legal battle is part of a growing trend in which crypto firms challenge regulators not just on rule enforcement, but on transparency and procedural fairness.

With regulatory landscapes shifting and political oversight intensifying, the Coinbase vs. FDIC case may help define how—and how much—federal agencies can shape the future of crypto banking behind closed doors.