Corporate Accountability

RELEASE: Justices Should Reject Coinbase’s Attempt to Craft Special Rules for Companies Seeking Arbitration

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Coinbase v. Bielski and Coinbase v. Suski, two cases in which Coinbase is trying to make it more difficult for individuals who have been injured by the company to have their day in court, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Smita Ghosh issued the following reaction:

The Supreme Court heard argument today in two cases in which consumers hope to hold Coinbase accountable in court for various alleged violations of state and federal law. Coinbase has been seeking to keep these consumers out of court, arguing that they agreed to arbitrate their disputes in a click-through user agreement that the consumers allegedly agreed to when creating Coinbase accounts. And now, before the Supreme Court, Coinbase is arguing that the district court must pause the litigation in these cases while the court of appeals reviews the decision denying its effort to compel arbitration.

Coinbase’s argument is wrong. Indeed, it fundamentally distorts the statute on which it purports to rely. At argument this morning, several justices seemed to recognize as much, suggesting that Coinbase seems to seek a special rule not written into law for the benefit of companies seeking arbitration. As the Chief Justice observed, the arbitration statute Coinbase points to gives “huge benefits” to defendants invoking arbitration agreements, but it does not address the particular benefit—a stay of litigation—for which Coinbase is asking.

Echoing our brief on the issue, the Chief Justice emphasized that Coinbase seeks a privilege that is “not granted in the statute.” As our brief makes clear, Coinbase is attempting to read a lot into Congress’s silence. The company argues that Congress silently and invisibly imposed a categorical rule that would strip courts of the discretion to determine whether a stay is appropriate that they generally enjoy—an approach that is, as Justice Jackson put it, “exactly backwards.”

While the legal issues in the case may seem highly technical, the stakes are significant. As Justice Kagan pointed out, ruling in Coinbase’s favor would jeopardize consumers’ “right to have their case litigated in a courtroom” by permitting companies to delay the resolution of their claims. Fortunately for individuals seeking to hold companies like Coinbase accountable, the law is simply not on Coinbase’s side, and the Court should recognize that in these cases.

##

Resources:

Case page in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski & Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/coinbase-inc-v-bielski-coinbase-inc-v-suski/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
February 27, 2024

RELEASE: At Oral Argument, Justices Recognize Profound Effect of Banking Case on State Efforts to Protect Consumers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court this morning in Cantero...
By: Smita Ghosh
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

National Association of Private Fund Managers v. Securities and Exchange Commission

In National Association of Private Fund Managers v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Fifth Circuit is determining whether Congress granted the SEC the authority to regulate private fund advisers.
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Supreme Court

Cantero v. Bank of America

In Cantero v. Bank of America, the Supreme Court is considering whether a state law protecting New York homeowners is preempted by the federal National Banking Act.
Corporate Accountability
December 5, 2023

RELEASE: Supreme Court Oral Argument Shows Conservative Attempt to Limit Congress’s Taxing Power is Misguided

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Moore v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Supreme Court

Moore v. United States

In Moore v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering a challenge to Congress’s power to tax income under the Sixteenth Amendment.
Corporate Accountability
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

Bristol Myers Squibb v. Becerra and Janssen v. Becerra

In Bristol Myers Squibb v. Becerra and Janssen v. Becerra, the District of New Jersey is considering whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program amounts to an unconstitutional taking of their property.