May 23, 2024
Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski et al., No. 23-3 – Decided May 23, 2024
Today, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a court, not an arbitrator, should decide if an arbitration agreement containing a delegation clause was narrowed by a later contract providing for disputes to be decided in court.
“[W]here, as here, parties have agreed to two contracts—one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other either explicitly or implicitly sending arbitrability disputes to the courts—a court must decide which contract governs.”
Justice Jackson, writing for the Court
Background:
Arbitration agreements often include a delegation clause providing that an arbitrator, not a court, should decide threshold questions about the agreement’s scope, applicability, and validity. David Suski entered a user agreement with Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange platform, that included an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause. Later, Suski participated in a Coinbase-sponsored sweepstakes, the rules of which included a forum selection clause that directed sweepstakes-related disputes to California state and federal courts.
Suski filed a putative class action against Coinbase alleging that its promotion of the sweepstakes violated California law. Coinbase moved to compel arbitration under the user agreement and argued that any dispute about arbitrability was for the arbitrator, not the court. Suski argued that the sweepstakes rules’ forum selection clause superseded the arbitration agreement. The district court agreed and denied arbitration. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the interaction between the user agreement and the sweepstakes rules was an issue that could not be delegated to an arbitrator. The court went on to hold that Suski’s claims were not arbitrable because the sweepstakes rules’ forum selection clause superseded the arbitration agreement in these circumstances.
Issue:
Where parties enter into an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause, should an arbitrator or a court decide whether that arbitration agreement is narrowed by a later contract that is silent as to arbitration and delegation?
Court’s Holding:
A court should decide the conflict between the agreements under the particular circumstances of this case.
What It Means:
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the U.S. Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice
Thomas H. Dupree Jr. +1 202.955.8547 [email protected] |
Allyson N. Ho +1 214.698.3233 [email protected] |
Julian W. Poon +1 213.229.7758 [email protected] |
Lucas C. Townsend +1 202.887.3731 [email protected] |
Bradley J. Hamburger +1 213.229.7658 [email protected] |
Brad G. Hubbard +1 214.698.3326 [email protected] |
Related Practice: Class Actions
Christopher Chorba +1 213.229.7396 [email protected] |
Kahn A. Scolnick +1 213.229.7656 [email protected] |
This alert was prepared by associates Max E. Schulman and Jason Muehlhoff.
© 2024 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.