Coinbase v. Suski

In Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, the U.S. Supreme Court considered a dispute arising from Coinbase's Dogecoin sweepstakes. Users agreed to a general user agreement containing an arbitration clause, but the separate official contest rules required disputes to be resolved in California courts. David Suski and other users filed a class action alleging deceptive advertising. Coinbase moved to compel arbitration under the user agreement. The lower courts held that because the two contracts conflicted, a court rather than an arbitrator must decide which contract governed. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, ruling that where parties have multiple agreements and a genuine dispute exists over whether they agreed to arbitrate, the court must resolve that threshold question. The decision reinforced judicial authority over gateway arbitrability issues in layered consumer contracts.

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that courts, not arbitrators, must decide which contract applies when multiple agreements conflict over the forum for dispute resolution.

Whether a court or an arbitrator should decide which of two conflicting contracts governs when one contains an arbitration clause and the other designates a judicial forum.

The decision clarifies that companies cannot automatically force arbitration when later or separate agreements contain inconsistent forum selection clauses. It preserves court authority over threshold questions of contract formation and arbitrability, influencing how consumer contracts and promotional rules are drafted nationwide.