- Coinbase is seeking FDIC documents about a crypto “choke” letter.
- Litigation resumed after FDIC transparency proved insufficient.
- History Associates has also moved to lift a stay in its own FOIA case against the FDIC.
Coinbase, the leading US-based cryptocurrency exchange, has filed a motion in the US District Court for the District of Columbia to revive its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
The exchange alleges that the FDIC withheld key records related to the agency’s communications with banks about crypto-related activity.
Specifically, Coinbase seeks documents concerning what has been described as a “choke” or “pause” letter—guidance reportedly instructing banks to halt crypto-related services. Coinbase views these communications as part of a broader effort that hindered the industry’s access to banking services.
Why is Coinbase reviving the lawsuit?
This legal move restarts a case that had been paused in February 2025 after President Trump designated Travis Hill as acting chair of the FDIC.
Hill pledged to increase the agency’s transparency beyond FOIA requirements, raising hopes that Coinbase could obtain the requested records without further litigation. The stay reflected an optimistic moment, suggesting FDIC policy or practice might change under new leadership.
However, Coinbase’s head of legal, Paul Grewal, recently told journalist Eleanor Terrett that although cooperation from the FDIC has improved, it remains inadequate—prompting the company to press forward with its lawsuit.
Context for Coinbase’s persistence also comes from shifts in FDIC policy. The FDIC initially announced that banks no longer required preapproval to engage in legally permitted crypto activities so long as they appropriately managed associated risks.
That position signaled a departure from the prior administration’s more cautious approach and suggested a friendlier environment for crypto banking relationships.
Nonetheless, Coinbase argues that such policy changes do not eliminate the need for full transparency about prior actions—particularly what Coinbase characterizes as “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” an alleged coordinated regulatory effort to restrict the sector’s access to banking services.
History Associates also moves against the FDIC
Coinbase’s litigation mirrors parallel legal pressure from History Associates Incorporated, which on March 31, 2025, filed its own motion to lift the stay in its FOIA case against the FDIC.
History Associates contends the FDIC failed to comply with an informal information-sharing process ordered by the court and refused to provide details about its FOIA practices, including document retention and search methods.
Both lawsuits underscore growing frustration with the FDIC’s lack of clarity, despite promises of greater openness under Chair Hill’s leadership.
The stakes are particularly high for Coinbase because the records it seeks could reveal the extent of regulatory pressure on banks to limit crypto-related transactions.
Previous FOIA requests have produced FDIC correspondence advising banks to stop certain crypto activities, fueling concerns that regulators undertook a deliberate campaign to curb the industry’s access to banking services.
The FDIC is expected to respond to Coinbase’s motion within about two weeks, and the court’s decision could set an important precedent for how federal agencies handle transparency in the rapidly evolving cryptocurrency landscape.