Dow Jones has asked a New York federal judge to dismiss Binance's defamation lawsuit, arguing that the cryptocurrency exchange has failed to demonstrate the "actual malice" required to sustain its claims.

At the heart of the dispute is a Wall Street Journal report alleging that Binance dismantled an internal investigation into more than $1 billion in transactions reportedly tied to sanctioned Iranian entities. Binance filed suit in March, accusing the Journal of publishing false and defamatory statements about its compliance operations. The exchange contends that the investigation continued, identified suspicious activity, led to the removal of relevant accounts, and involved cooperation with law enforcement. It also rejected claims that employees faced retaliation for raising concerns.

Motion to Dismiss

Dow Jones filed its motion to dismiss on May 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The company argued that Binance's complaint does not adequately establish that the publication acted with actual malice — a demanding standard that generally requires proof that a statement was published either knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth.

That threshold traces to the Supreme Court's 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which held that the First Amendment bars defamation liability for public officials absent proof of actual malice, a requirement the Court later extended to public figures. The standard has long made defamation claims by prominent plaintiffs over news reporting difficult to sustain, and the task at the motion-to-dismiss stage is narrower still: a court tests whether the allegations, accepted as true, state a plausible claim, rather than weighing the accuracy of the Journal's reporting itself.

Judge Paul Engelmayer issued an order allowing Binance to amend its complaint by June 8. Should Binance amend its filing, Dow Jones could answer, submit a new dismissal motion, or rely on its earlier motion. The court set additional deadlines for the parties through late June.

Crypto-sector plaintiffs have seldom cleared the actual-malice bar in U.S. courts. Binance co-founder and former chief executive Changpeng Zhao sued Forbes in 2020 over an article concerning the exchange's regulatory strategy and voluntarily dismissed the case in 2021 before any ruling on the merits.

What Comes Next

The case places competing claims about Binance's compliance practices before a federal court at a time when the exchange faces broader scrutiny over Iran-linked cryptocurrency flows. Binance maintains that its internal review uncovered a complex pattern of activity and that it acted against accounts connected to suspicious transactions. Under U.S. sanctions programs, dealings with designated Iranian parties are generally prohibited for persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and violations can carry civil and criminal penalties — the legal backdrop against which the disputed compliance allegations carry weight.

The judge has not yet ruled on the merits of Dow Jones' dismissal request. The litigation's outcome may therefore turn on whether Binance can sufficiently support its allegations and establish that the disputed reporting crossed the legal threshold for defamation. If the suit survives dismissal, it would advance toward fact discovery, where the parties would exchange evidence relevant to what the Journal's reporters knew at the time of publication; if the motion succeeds, the case would end absent a successful amended pleading or appeal.