Nate Raymond
Thomson Reuters
Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at nate.raymond@thomsonreuters.com.
Courts rather than arbitrators to decide whether Dogecoin dispute goes to arbitration SCOTUSblog
Source link ]]>
Coinbase Loses Supreme Court Arbitration Dispute Over 2021 Dogecoin Sweepstakes CryptoPotato
Source link ]]>
Supreme Court denies Coinbase’s request to compel arbitration in Dogecoin sweepstakes dispute CryptoSlate
Source link ]]>
Amicus Briefs Argue Crypto Exchange Coinbase Can’t Compel Arbitration in Dogecoin Sweepstakes Dispute BlockTribune
Source link ]]>
Supreme Court to resolve Coinbase arbitration dispute with users in Dogecoin sweepstakes lawsuit CryptoSlate
Source link ]]>
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Nov. 3 that it will review a contentious case involving cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase and a dispute with its users over a Dogecoin sweepstakes, Bloomberg News reported.
At the heart of the matter is Coinbase’s endeavor to shift the dispute with its users from the public court system into private arbitration, a route often favored by businesses for its cost-efficiency and expediency.
The Supreme Court will determine whether Coinbase can move the dispute with its users into arbitration.
Dogecoin lawsuit
The case revolves around Coinbase’s appeal to overturn a prior court ruling that had effectively deemed the platform had forfeited its right to seek arbitration in a legal dispute stemming from a 2021 sweepstakes, which users claimed was misleading advertising.
Businesses frequently prefer arbitration as it is a swifter and more economical process than traditional court litigation, which can be more challenging to navigate and carries a higher risk of substantial damages.
The big question in the case is whether a judge or an arbitrator should decide which of two conflicting agreements should be followed in the dispute between Coinbase and its upset users. The Supreme Court ruling will determine whether the disagreement goes to arbitration or court.
Upon creating their Coinbase accounts, users agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration. However, a subsequent agreement related to the sweepstakes stipulated that any issues related to the contest must be addressed in a California courtroom.
When users later accused Coinbase of violating California’s false advertising law by luring them into participating in a sweepstakes offering Dogecoin prizes, they brought a class-action lawsuit in federal court. The suit alleges that Coinbase misled users into paying to enter the sweepstakes, which they believed was a false advertising campaign.
Arbitration requests
A federal judge in California refused Coinbase’s request to shift the dispute to arbitration, contending that the user agreements required such a move. The decision was subsequently upheld by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a related dispute in June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Coinbase. In that case, the justices supported Coinbase’s request to suspend customer lawsuits while it sought appeals to relocate the disputes from public courts to private arbitration.
The Supreme Court review of the case is a pivotal development for companies utilizing arbitration clauses, as it will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the formulation and enforcement of user agreements, especially in the ever-evolving realm of digital currency trading.
The ongoing legal dispute hasn’t hindered Coinbase’s efforts to expand its services, with the company introducing new trading options for its users, including crypto futures trading.
The Supreme Court’s decision to investigate this matter underscores its commitment to defining the boundaries between arbitration and traditional legal proceedings. It could set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
BREAKING: Justices To Hear Arbitration Case Over Dogecoin Sweepstakes Law360
Source link ]]>
No Redo of Arbitration Denial in Coinbase Dogecoin Contest Row Bloomberg Law
Source link ]]>
Coinbase Loses Trial to Force Arbitration in Dogecoin Lawsuit- U.S. court denies Coinbase (NASDAQ:) to force private arbitration on former users.
- Users claim they were “duped” by the rules in Coinbase’s contest.
- Judge halts the proceedings in the sweepstakes case after Coinbase appeal.
According to a ruling by the U.S. appeals court on Friday, Coinbase Global Inc (COIN.O) cannot require former users to use private arbitration instead of the courts to settle disputes related to the Dogecoin sweepstakes run by the crypto exchange.
Four former Coinbase consumers filed a lawsuit against the firm, alleging that they were tricked into paying $100 or more to enter a contest in June 2021 for a chance at winning prizes worth up to $1.2 million in Dogecoin.
To open an account, each user had to accept the terms of the company’s user agreement, which included a clause mandating that any disagreements be resolved through arbitration.
The ruling on Friday followed a week after the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a procedural issue in that and another case, which Coinbase had unsuccessfully attempted to drive into arbitration.
Business organizations argue that arbitrat …
The post Coinbase Loses Trial to Force Arbitration in Dogecoin Lawsuit appeared first on Coin Edition.
Dec 16 (Reuters) – Coinbase Global Inc (COIN.O) cannot force former customers to use private arbitration rather than the courts to resolve claims over a Dogecoin sweepstakes the cryptocurrency exchange ran, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday.
Four former Coinbase users had sued Coinbase, claiming the company duped them into paying $100 or more to enter a sweepstakes in June 2021 for a chance to win prizes of up to $1.2 million in the cryptocurrency Dogecoin.
Each of the users had agreed to the company’s user agreement to create an account, which included a provision requiring them to pursue any disputes in arbitration.
Friday’s ruling came a week after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a procedural issue from that and another case that Coinbase unsuccessfully sought to force into arbitration.
Business groups say arbitration is more efficient than suing in court. Plaintiffs’ lawyers say arbitration favors companies and that consumers are better off in court.
But a federal judge declined to compel arbitration, and San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with that decision, citing a provision in the sweepstakes’ official rules requiring disputes to be heard in California courts.
David Harris, the users’ lawyer, said they were pleased with the ruling. Coinbase declined to comment.
The case is one of two that Coinbase is appealing to the Supreme Court after the 9th Circuit decisions declining to put trial court proceedings on hold while it appealed judges’ decisions to not force the cases into arbitration.
The other proposed class action was filed by Abraham Bielski, who said he was tricked into letting a scammer access his Coinbase account, who then stole more than $31,000 from him.
A judge put the proceeding in the sweepstakes case on hold pending appeal, but only after Coinbase asked the Supreme Court to hear the dispute.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Josie Kao
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.