Given the recent data breach and Coinbase’s user agreement that aims to force customers into arbitration rather than individual or class action lawsuits, it’s interesting to read the outcome of a recent arbitration case against Coinbase.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741499/1/coinbase-inc-v-spilker/
Customer lost $350,000 in September 2022 to a phishing attack from a scammer that the customer said had “confidential information that could have only been obtained with direct access to Coinbase’s database”.
If an org demands arbitration, that is a good sign to not have anything to do with them.
Coinbase didn’t prevent the suspicious transfers, allegedly wiped customer’s transaction history, blamed the customer for the loss, then refused to reimburse. Arbitration concluded with $0 reimbursement.
Arbitrator found the complaint had been filed too late, and that the customer had admitted that a third party rather than a Coinbase insider had performed the theft. Doesn’t appear the arbitrator investigated the claims of a possible breach, or how the hardware MFA was bypassed.
@molly0xfff people clammor for a centralized authority despite using crypto. It's insane what a grift it has become.
AITA for being disappointed Coinbase did not also kidnap and torture their customer? 🤔
@molly0xfff And once again, the daily possibility of some form of hack is considered absolutely improbable. 😅
Maybe because accepting it would mean a lot of uncomfortable consequences …
@molly0xfff God damn. Coinbase stole this guy's money straight up
As far as the 'filing too late' is concerned, one must love this tiny item in Coinbase's agreement:
'a. Claimant’s EFTA cause of action is time-barred because the “one-year limitations period begins when the first unauthorized transfer occurs, not upon discovery by the consumer, and not when the consumer notifies the defendant of the unauthorized transfer.” '
So much for having your coins 'peacefully' at Coinbase. You have to stay constantly alert.
![9. On December 17, 2024, Arbitrator Kruze issued an Order Granting Dispositive Motion as to all of Mr. Spilker’s claims. Ex. A at 6 (“Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Claimant’s claims against Coinbase are dismissed.”). 10. The Final Award holds: a. Claimant’s EFTA cause of action is time-barred because the “one-year limitations period begins when the first unauthorized transfer occurs, not upon discovery by the consumer, and not when the consumer notifies the defendant of the unauthorized transfer.” Id. at 3, applying 15 U.S.C. §1693m(g) and Wike v. Vertrue, Inc., 566 F.3d 590,593 (6th Cir. 2009). b. “The undisputed facts show that a third party, not Coinbase, caused Claimant’s damages” and that “Claimant’s damages were the result of an intervening and superseding cause: the actions of a third-party scammer. Coinbase, as a matter of law, cannot be held liable for Claimant’s damages.” Ex. A at 4, citing May v. Google, LLC, No. 24-CV-01314- BLF, 2024 WL 4681604, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2024). c. The parties’ contract forecloses Mr. Spilker’s causes of action for breach of contract, negligence and tort claims, and claims under Idaho and Oregon law. Ex. A at 5. d. Pursuant to Melchoir v. New Line Prods., Inc., 106 Cal. App. 4th 779, 793 (2003), “Claimant’s cause of action for unjust enrichment fails because ‘there is no [such thing as a] cause of action in Ca](/proxy/post_attachment/505696/c7f061ded0.png "9. On December 17, 2024, Arbitrator Kruze issued an Order Granting Dispositive Motion as to all of Mr. Spilker’s claims. Ex. A at 6 (“Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Claimant’s claims against Coinbase are dismissed.”). 10. The Final Award holds: a. Claimant’s EFTA cause of action is time-barred because the “one-year limitations period begins when the first unauthorized transfer occurs, not upon discovery by the consumer, and not when the consumer notifies the defendant of the unauthorized transfer.” Id. at 3, applying 15 U.S.C. §1693m(g) and Wike v. Vertrue, Inc., 566 F.3d 590,593 (6th Cir. 2009). b. “The undisputed facts show that a third party, not Coinbase, caused Claimant’s damages” and that “Claimant’s damages were the result of an intervening and superseding cause: the actions of a third-party scammer. Coinbase, as a matter of law, cannot be held liable for Claimant’s damages.” Ex. A at 4, citing May v. Google, LLC, No. 24-CV-01314- BLF, 2024 WL 4681604, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2024). c. The parties’ contract forecloses Mr. Spilker’s causes of action for breach of contract, negligence and tort claims, and claims under Idaho and Oregon law. Ex. A at 5. d. Pursuant to Melchoir v. New Line Prods., Inc., 106 Cal. App. 4th 779, 793 (2003), “Claimant’s cause of action for unjust enrichment fails because ‘there is no [such thing as a] cause of action in Ca")
