Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski
Issues
Can a subsequent agreement to a platform’s contest terms alter the terms of an arbitration delegation clause originally agreed to in the platform’s general user agreement?
Petitioner Coinbase seeks to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that a subsequent contract regarding the terms for a contest with the contest platform’s registered users limits the scope of the platform’s general user agreement on arbitration and how that scope is determined. The parties dispute whether original agreement’s text forecloses subsequent modification and whether the Federal Arbitration Act and California contract law govern that determination. The outcome of this case carries implications for contract predictability, the authority of arbitrators, and the power of the Federal Arbitration Act.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether, where parties enter into an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause, an arbitrator or a court should decide whether that arbitration agreement is narrowed by a later contract that is silent as to arbitration and delegation.
In January 2018, David Suski opened a Coinbase account. Suski v. Marden-Kane. Upon opening his account, Suski agreed to the arbitration provision listed in the Coinbase User Agreement. Suski v. Coinbase.
Additional Resources
- Venkatesh Jartarkar, Coinbase’s Dogecoin Sweepstakes Dispute Heads to Supreme Court, Investing.com (Nov. 7, 2023).
- Lee Williams, Who Decides? Coinbase Returns to the Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Delegation, International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (Nov. 6, 2023).