The Coinbase Case: Implications for Standard Form Contract Arbitration Disputes

In a class action suit brought against Coinbase, a CryptoCurrency trading platform,  its consumers asserted that their accounts were mishandled, resulting in substantial financial losses due to the alleged fraudulent activities. Coinbase, in its defense, relied on the Coinbase user agreement, which contains an arbitration provision that compels arbitration for disputes arising under the agreement.¹

When the federal District Court denied Coinbase’s motion to compel arbitration, the company brought an interlocutory appeal² on the issue of arbitrability in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.³ Coinbase also moved the District Court to stay its proceedings until the resolution of the Interlocutory appeal. However, the District Court denied Coinbases’s motion for stay, and the Ninth Circuit similarly declined to order stay on the District Court’s proceedings while awaiting the appeal. Coinbase further appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where the sole issue was whether the District Court must stay its pre-trial and trial proceedings during the ongoing interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court, relying on the Grigg precedent⁴, held in a closely divided decision, that a district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is ongoing. 

The majority’s perspective asserts that an automatic stay serves a dual purpose of safeguarding the interest of the party pursuing arbitration and efficiently allocating resources while anticipating a potential shift towards arbitration following an appeal. However, this rationale diminishes if the party favoring arbitration, in this case, Coinbase, faces slim prospects on appeal. This reasoning also loses strength when imposing a stay would significantly disadvantage the party opposing the arbitration, outweighing any protective value for the party seeking arbitration.

To illustrate, the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court highlights a scenario where a delay in the discovery process could lead to the irrevocable loss of crucial evidence, such as when a vital witness is on their deathbed. In accordance with the majority’s framework, if an interlocutory arbitrability appeal is pending, the discovery proceedings must be suspended, potentially leading to the forfeiture of essential evidence. Notably, this outcome persists even if the parties mutually agree to proceed with the discovery process. Moreover, the majority opinion restricts district courts from formulating tailored remedies that aim to strike a balance between competing interests.⁵ In contrast, the dissenting opinion advocates for the traditional discretionary stay approach, enabling the district court judges to exercise discretion on whether or not to order a stay on the rest of the case, irrespective of whether the dispute eventually steers towards arbitration.⁶ This equitable resolution is proscribed under the majority’s rigid mandatory general stay rule.

Examining the Coinbase case and its implication for disputes arising from “standard form contracts” aligns with the concerns highlighted earlier. In the realm of contractual agreements, standard form contracts have become a prevailing instrument, frequently used in various domains such as consumer transactions, employment relationships, software licensing, and online transactions. These contracts are characterized by their predetermined terms, often leaving one party with little to no room for negotiation, while the other party holds significant drafting power. The intricate dynamics that shape the formation and execution of such contracts require a more equitable approach. The conventional discretionary stay, guided by a balancing test, would offer a more pragmatic alternative compared to a mandatory stay of pretrial and trial proceedings during any ongoing interlocutory appeals on jurisdiction or arbitrability of any potential disputes arising from such contracts.

A balancing test takes into account the unique factors of each case, extending beyond the confines of the contract itself. Factors such as the nature of the dispute, the parties’ resources, their expertise, and potential barriers to accessing justice are carefully weighed. This approach ensures fairness by avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach that could disproportionately favor the party who drafted the standard form contract.

This consideration becomes all the more critical when addressing the interests of vulnerable parties. Typically, parties entering into standard-form contracts lack equal bargaining power and may not fully comprehend the implications of any arbitration clauses. Here, the balancing test would take into consideration the relative positions of the parties, thereby safeguarding the rights and interests of consumers or employees who might find themselves at a disadvantage during negotiations. Also, a balancing test would ensure principled decision-making preventing tactical use of stay. 

Integrating technology based platforms to address such disputes could serve as a bridge to harmonize the interests of both parties and balance the power dynamics at play. In disputes arising out of standard form contracts, online dispute resolution (“ODR”)  platforms could offer aid for navigating the stay period. During this period, such technological  tools can securely preserve evidence, thus safeguarding against any potential tampering or loss. This would ensure that crucial evidence remains intact and accessible for when the stay is eventually lifted, irrespective of whether the case steers towards litigation or arbitration. This would also facilitate the transition to arbitration seamlessly eliminating the need for excess paperwork. Concurrently, these tools can provide a medium for transparent communication where parties can engage in ongoing dialogue, even during the stay period. Importantly, such tools would help combat power imbalance by providing equal access to information.

In conclusion, the traditional discretionary stay, guided by a balancing test for stays in disputes arising out of arbitration clauses in standard form contracts, could strike a balance between the contractual terms and the equitable resolution of the dispute. This balanced approach is well-suited to recognize that the disputes arising out of the standard form contract vary widely and that a one-size-fits-all approach may not address specific concerns presented by the dispute. It also acknowledges the inherent complexities and power dynamics within such contracts, while fostering fairness, efficiency, and accessibility to justice for all parties involved.

1. Coinbase v. Bielski, 599 U.S. ___ (2023) ↩︎
2. Interlocutory appeal is an appeal challenging non-final trial court order on an issue while other aspects of the case are still pending. Federal Arbitration Act 9 U.S.C. §16(a) authorizes an interlocutory appeal from a denial of motion to compel arbitration. ↩︎
3. 9 U. S. C. §16(a) expressly permits an immediate appellate challenge to a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. §16(a) is a statutory exception to the usual rule that the parties may not appeal before the final judgment ↩︎
4. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U. S. 56  ↩︎
5. Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009). ↩︎
6. Id, at 434. (Traditional stay prerequisites include: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, favorable balance of equities, and alignment with the public interest) ↩︎

Damini Mohan

Damini Mohan is a legal professional from Bengaluru, India. Holding a Bachelor of Business Administration and a Bachelor of Law (LLB Honors) from Alliance University India, Damini's academic foundation laid the groundwork for her legal career. Engaging in a summer program in Brussels, she studied European Business Law and World…