In David Suski v. Coinbase, Inc., et al., the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court docket order denying defendant Coinbase, Inc.’s (Coinbase) movement to compel arbitration, concluding that points surrounding a discussion board choice clause weren’t delegated to the arbitrator and had been for the court docket to determine. The court docket additional discovered that the discussion board choice clause in Coinbase’s official guidelines outdated the consumer settlement’s arbitration clause.
The case concerned claims introduced by the plaintiff and different customers of Coinbase’s on-line cryptocurrency alternate who opted into Coinbase’s “Dogecoin Sweepstakes” in June 2021. When opening their accounts, the plaintiffs agreed to a Coinbase consumer settlement which included an arbitration provision. The plaintiffs later opted into the sweepstakes’ official guidelines, which included a discussion board choice clause offering that “California courts have unique jurisdiction over any controversies relating to the sweepstakes.” The plaintiffs later introduced claims beneath California’s False Promoting Regulation, Unfair Competitors Regulation, and Shopper Authorized Cures Act in opposition to Coinbase and one other defendant employed by Coinbase to market and run the sweepstakes. Coinbase filed a movement to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims. The district court docket denied the movement, concluding that the “delegation clause” within the consumer settlement “didn’t delegate to the arbitrator the difficulty of which contract [the User Agreement or Official Rules] ruled the dispute.” Making use of state regulation rules of contract interpretation, the district court docket then dominated that the official guidelines outdated the consumer settlement, and that the arbitration clause contained within the consumer settlement didn’t apply to the plaintiffs’ claims.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court docket’s order and addressed Coinbase’s argument that the district court docket erred when it concluded that the consumer settlement didn’t delegate to the arbitrator the difficulty of whether or not the discussion board choice clause within the official guidelines outdated the arbitration clause within the consumer settlement. The court docket famous its choice in Oracle Am. Inc. v. Myriad Grp. A.G., (ninth Cir. 2013) that “[w]hether the court docket or the arbitrator decides arbitrability is a matter for judicial dedication except the events clearly and unmistakably present in any other case.” The court docket then discovered that the district court docket accurately dominated that on this case, the difficulty of whether or not the discussion board choice clause within the official guidelines outdated the arbitration clause within the consumer settlement “was not delegated to the arbitrator, however reasonably was for the court docket to determine.”
The court docket then addressed Coinbase’s argument that the district court docket erred when it concluded that the discussion board choice clause within the official guidelines outdated the arbitration clause contained within the consumer settlement. The court docket famous that state regulation rules of contract formation and interpretation apply “when figuring out whether or not events have agreed to undergo arbitration” and when there are two contracts coping with the identical material with out addressing whether or not the second contract is an alternative to the primary, “the 2 contracts have to be interpreted collectively and the latter contract prevails to the extent they’re inconsistent.” The court docket agreed with the district court docket that given the battle between the official guidelines and the consumer settlement, “the Official Guidelines’ discussion board choice clause supersedes the Consumer Settlement’s arbitration clause” for the reason that official guidelines got here after the consumer settlement.
David Suski, et al. v. Coinbase, Inc., et al., No. 22-15209 (ninth Cir. Dec. 16, 2022)