Enforceable Terms and Arbitration Provisions Important for Providers in Current Crypto Cyberthreat Environment
![](https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/crypto-US-regulatory.jpg)
By: Jonathan Mollod (Proskauer – Blockchain & The Law)
A recent Bloomberg Law article highlights a notable decrease in active civil suits against entities like cryptocurrency exchanges, digital wallet providers, and mobile phone companies regarding claims related to crypto hacking incidents or cybertheft. This decline can be attributed partially to heightened security measures and concerted legal strategies that update terms of service provisions and shift such cases to arbitration. The report also indicates that these providers have revisited user agreements to enhance limitations of liability provisions and include class action waivers. These legal tactics remain crucial given the persistent threats of crypto theft, protocol exploitation, and wallet hacks. According to a recent crypto crime report from Chainalysis, while the total funds stolen have decreased by half from the previous year, the number of individual hacking incidents has risen.
A recent appeals court decision by the Ninth Circuit underscores the importance of enforceable terms, particularly in the realm of cryptocurrencies. The Ninth Circuit overturned a district court’s ruling that denied cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration in a case brought by Plaintiff Abraham Bielski. Bielski alleged an unauthorized and fraudulent transfer of funds from his Coinbase account by cyberthieves. The appeals court found Coinbase’s arbitration agreement, which included a delegation provision, to be enforceable, rejecting arguments of unconscionability.
Coinbase’s user agreement contained a delegation provision, delegating disputes arising from the agreement to an arbitrator, including questions about the agreement’s enforceability, revocability, scope, or validity. Despite Plaintiff’s challenges to the provision, arguing it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and lacked mutuality, the appeals court ruled in favor of Coinbase. The court recognized some level of procedural unconscionability but deemed the agreement’s dispute resolution procedures reasonable. Ultimately, the court concluded that the delegation provision’s limited levels of procedural and substantive unconscionability did not render it unenforceable…
Featured News
Nvidia and Microsoft Sued for Allegedly Undercutting AI Technology Patent Prices
Sep 5, 2024 by
CPI
White & Case Strengthens Antitrust and M&A Practices with New Partner Additions
Sep 5, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Dismisses Antitrust Lawyers’ Fee Demand Over JetBlue-Spirit Deal
Sep 5, 2024 by
CPI
Boston Landlords Named as US Sues RealPage Over Alleged Rent-Inflating Practices
Sep 5, 2024 by
CPI
Judge to Weigh Landmark NCAA Settlement Proposal in Antitrust Lawsuit
Sep 5, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Canada & Mexico
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competitive Convergence: Mexico’s 30-Year Quest for Antitrust Parity with its Northern Neighbor
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competition and Digital Markets in North America: A Comparative Study of Antitrust Investigations in Mexico and the United States
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Recent Antitrust Development in Mexico: COFECE’s Preliminary Report on Amazon and Mercado Libre
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
The Cost of Making COFECE Disappear
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI