发布: 2024/05/24 18:44 阅读: 649
In a Decisive Unanimous Ruling, the US Supreme Court Sides Against Coinbase
美国最高法院一致做出决定性裁决,反对 Coinbase
In a decisive unanimous ruling, the US Supreme Court has ruled against Coinbase in a class-action lawsuit stemming from its 2021 Dogecoin sweepstakes. The high-profile case, resolved on May 23, revolved around a promotional event promising prizes totaling up to $1.2 million.
美国最高法院在一项决定性的一致裁决中,对 Coinbase 在 2021 年狗狗币抽奖活动引发的集体诉讼中作出了败诉。这起备受瞩目的案件于 5 月 23 日得到解决,涉及一项承诺奖品总额高达 120 万美元的促销活动。
How Coinbase Lost the Legal Battle
Coinbase 如何输掉法律诉讼
The lawsuit was initiated by participant David Suski and others, who alleged that Coinbase, along with the sweepstakes management company, violated California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act by misleading participants.
该诉讼由参与者 David Suski 等人发起,他们指控 Coinbase 以及抽奖管理公司误导参与者,违反了加州《虚假广告法》、《不正当竞争法》和《消费者法律救济法》。
The crux of the dispute was Coinbase's effort to enforce arbitration based on its user agreement, which a District Court decided also applied to the sweepstakes agreement. The Supreme Court's ruling supported the District Court's decision, clarifying that disputes related to the sweepstakes are to be adjudicated in state and federal courts. This effectively nullifies the arbitration clause that would typically mandate dispute resolution through a third party without court involvement.
争议的关键在于 Coinbase 试图根据其用户协议强制执行仲裁,地方法院裁定该协议也适用于抽奖协议。最高法院的裁决支持地方法院的裁决,明确与抽奖相关的争议应由州法院和联邦法院裁决。这实际上使仲裁条款无效,该条款通常要求在没有法院参与的情况下通过第三方解决争议。
Implications of the Ruling
该裁决的影响
This outcome marked a significant legal defeat for Coinbase, which preferred arbitration as the dispute resolution method. Following the decision, Paul Grewal, Coinbase's Chief Legal Officer, expressed mixed feelings.
这一结果标志着 Coinbase 在法律上的重大失败,该公司更倾向于仲裁作为争议解决方法。做出这一决定后,Coinbase 首席法务官 Paul Grewal 表达了复杂的感受。
"What a week. Some you win. Some you lose. We are grateful for having had the opportunity to present our case to the Court and appreciate the Court's consideration of this matter," Grewal said.
“这真是一周。有些人赢了,有些人输了。我们很高兴有机会向法院陈述我们的案件,并感谢法院对此事的考虑,”格雷瓦尔说。
Legal commentators have keenly analyzed the implications of this ruling. Stephen Carter, a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, pointed out a fundamental oversight by Coinbase's legal team. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the court, noted an essential inconsistency: the existence of two contracts.
法律评论家敏锐地分析了这一裁决的含义。彭博社观点专栏作家斯蒂芬·卡特 (Stephen Carter) 指出了 Coinbase 法律团队的根本性疏忽。法官克坦吉·布朗·杰克逊(Ketanji Brown Jackson)在为法庭撰稿时指出了一个本质上的不一致:存在两份合同。
The User Agreement included an arbitration clause. However, the Official Rules of the sweepstakes, which all entrants had to agree to, mentioned nothing about arbitration. Instead, they included a forum selection clause assigning exclusive jurisdiction to California courts over any disputes. This inconsistency was pivotal to the Supreme Court's decision, revealing a significant legal error.
用户协议包含仲裁条款。然而,所有参赛者都必须同意的抽奖官方规则并未提及仲裁。相反,它们包含了一项法院选择条款,将任何争议分配给加州法院专属管辖权。这种不一致对于最高法院的判决至关重要,揭示了重大的法律错误。
"The contracts professor in me ventures to suggest, as gently and respectfully as possible, that the company's lawyers should have foreseen this problem and ensured that the two contracts reflected a single, clear proposition," Carter explained.
“我身上的合同学教授冒昧地建议,尽可能温和和尊重地表明,公司的律师应该预见到这个问题,并确保两份合同反映一个单一、明确的主张,”卡特解释道。
The ruling might significantly influence future legal frameworks within the crypto industry, highlighting the necessity for clear, consistent legal terms in user agreements and promotional rules.
该裁决可能会对加密行业未来的法律框架产生重大影响,凸显用户协议和促销规则中明确、一致的法律条款的必要性。