Noting the court was deciding, as a matter of first impression, “what a party must do to specifically challenge a delegation provision and what a court may consider when evaluating this challenge,” the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Bielski v. Coinbase Inc., reversed a district court order that denied defendant Coinbase’s motion to compel arbitration.
Coinbase is an online cryptocurrency exchange. Plaintiff Abraham Bielski maintained an account, or “digital wallet,” with Coinbase that allowed him to store and transfer cryptocurrency in and out of his account. Before opening his account, Bielski was required to accept Coinbase’s user agreement, which included a three-step process to resolve any disputes: (i) an “informal complaint process,” which involved contacting Coinbase and attempting to resolve the dispute amicably; (ii) a “formal complaint process” involving a written complaint; and (iii) arbitration of the dispute pursuant to an arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement included a “delegation provision” providing that disputes arising out of the agreement including the “enforceability, revocability, scope, or validity” of the agreement were delegated to the arbitrator.
Shortly after opening his account, a dispute arose involving an unauthorized transfer from Bielski’s digital wallet. Bielski “live chatted” with company representatives, called the company hotline, and wrote two letters requesting help to recover his funds. He then filed a lawsuit under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E alleging Coinbase failed to investigate the unauthorized transfer of funds from his account. Coinbase moved to compel arbitration of the claims under the user agreement. The district court denied the motion to compel concluding the arbitration agreement and the delegation provision were “inseverable” and unconscionable.
On appeal, Bielski argued that the delegation provision and the arbitration agreement were unconscionable and unenforceable. The court first addressed what a party must do to challenge a delegation provision, and what a court may consider in evaluating the challenge. Coinbase argued on appeal that Bielski did not do enough to challenge the delegation provision. The court rejected this argument, concluding that by specifically objecting to the delegation provision in his opposition to the motion to compel, Bielski sufficiently challenged the provision. The court noted its approach was consistent with decisions in the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits, but contrary to the approach in the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, which require a party to provide “more substance in their delegation provision challenge.” The court then addressed what a court may consider in evaluating the challenge, concluding that “a court must be able to interpret that provision in the context of the agreement as a whole, which may require examining the underlying arbitration agreement as well.” Finally, the court rejected Bielski’s argument that the delegation provision was unconscionable, held that the district court erred in refusing to enforce the delegation provision, and reversed the order denying Coinbase’s motion to compel arbitration.
Bielski v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 22-15566 (9th Cir. Dec. 5, 2023).
