In a significant legal development, the United States Supreme Court has decided to weigh in on a dispute involving Coinbase and its users. The central issue at hand is the determination of whether a judge or an arbitrator should have the authority to decide which contractual terms govern disputes.

This legal conundrum has arisen due to conflicting agreements between the parties involved, with one contract advocating for arbitration while another supports the resolution of disputes in a courtroom setting.

Originally, Coinbase had implemented arbitration clauses in its contracts with clients. However, a complication emerged when a sweepstakes agreement directed dispute resolution to California courts. Subsequently, following allegations of deceptive advertising, customers pursued legal action through a class-action lawsuit, challenging Coinbase’s standard arbitration process.

Coinbase’s attempts to uphold arbitration faced resistance in lower courts. A federal judge in California, with the support of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, upheld the sweepstakes agreement’s preference for courtroom resolution. Consequently, the company’s request to transfer the dispute to arbitration was denied.

Interestingly, this judicial resistance occurred despite a recent Supreme Court decision, where a 5-4 majority ruled in favor of Coinbase in a related matter. In that case, the Court supported Coinbase’s efforts to put customer lawsuits on hold while it sought to resolve disputes through arbitration.

Throughout this legal dispute, Coinbase has not been idle. The company has expanded its service offerings by introducing new trading options for its users. Retail customers meeting certain criteria can now participate in crypto futures trading, with contracts sized more affordably, representing a fraction of the value of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ether.

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case marks a pivotal moment for companies employing arbitration clauses in their agreements. It also underscores the Court’s ongoing role in delineating the distinctions between arbitration and traditional legal proceedings. The ultimate verdict is expected to have a significant impact on the formulation and enforcement of user agreements, particularly in the rapidly evolving realm of digital currency trading

source : cointeleghraph