The adult-use ballot question could potentially allow cannabis sales in the third-largest U.S. state, with a population of more than 22 million people.
Source link
Supreme
Montenegro’s Supreme Court stalls Do Kwon’s extradition amid legal tussle
What is CryptoSlate Alpha?
A web3 membership designed to empower you with cutting-edge insights and knowledge, powered by Access Protocol. Learn more ›
Connected to Alpha
Welcome! 👋 You are connected to CryptoSlate Alpha. To manage your wallet connection, click the button below.
Important: You must lock a minimum of 20,000 ACS
If you don’t have enough, buy ACS on the following exchanges:
Connect via Access Protocol
Access Protocol is a web3 monetization paywall. When users stake ACS, they can access paywalled content. Learn more ›
Disclaimer: By choosing to lock your ACS tokens with CryptoSlate, you accept and recognize that you will be bound by the terms and conditions of your third-party digital wallet provider, as well as any applicable terms and conditions of the Access Foundation. CryptoSlate shall have no responsibility or liability with regard to the provision, access, use, locking, security, integrity, value, or legal status of your ACS Tokens or your digital wallet, including any losses associated with your ACS tokens. It is solely your responsibility to assume the risks associated with locking your ACS tokens with CryptoSlate. For more information, visit our terms page.
Bitcoin reigns supreme in NFT market with $677 million in 30-day sales
What is CryptoSlate Alpha?
A web3 membership designed to empower you with cutting-edge insights and knowledge. Learn more ›
Connected to Alpha
Welcome! 👋 You are connected to CryptoSlate Alpha. To manage your wallet connection, click the button below.
Oops…you must lock a minimum of 20,000 ACS
If you don’t have enough, buy ACS on the following exchanges:
Connect via Access Protocol
Access Protocol is a web3 monetization paywall. When users stake ACS, they can access paywalled content. Learn more ›
Disclaimer: By choosing to lock your ACS tokens with CryptoSlate, you accept and recognize that you will be bound by the terms and conditions of your third-party digital wallet provider, as well as any applicable terms and conditions of the Access Foundation. CryptoSlate shall have no responsibility or liability with regard to the provision, access, use, locking, security, integrity, value, or legal status of your ACS Tokens or your digital wallet, including any losses associated with your ACS tokens. It is solely your responsibility to assume the risks associated with locking your ACS tokens with CryptoSlate. For more information, visit our terms page.
Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Democrats’ attempts to impose a wealth tax on American billionaires could be shut down as a result of a Supreme Court case to be heard by justices this week, in what lawyers and accountants are calling the most important tax case in decades.
A challenge to the Trump administration’s one-off levy on offshore profits in 2018 has mushroomed into a proxy war that experts say could have profound consequences for future revenue-generating powers, and even raise questions over the legality of significant parts of the current tax code.
Petitioners Charles and Kathleen Moore, who were forced to pay almost $15,000 under the mandatory repatriation tax, sued the US government for a refund, arguing that the policy amounted to an unconstitutional raid on “unrealised” profits from an investment they had made more than a decade earlier in an Indian rural farming enterprise.
Two lower courts ruled against them, but the high court has agreed to hear the couple’s appeal. Oral arguments will be held on Tuesday.
Don Susswein, head of the partnership tax group in the Washington national tax office of the accounting firm RSM, said the case was the most important tax dispute to come before the Supreme Court in a century — or perhaps two. Proposals such as those championed by Senator Elizabeth Warren for a tax on the value of assets, and the Biden administration’s so-called billionaire’s tax on unrealised capital gains, “will be blessed or cursed depending how this case comes out”, he said.
Conservative campaigners have warned in briefs to the Supreme Court that a failure to reverse the lower courts’ decisions would be “an invitation” to enact wealth taxes.
The US Chamber of Commerce, which represents America’s largest businesses, said that if left intact, the decisions would lead to “new federal taxes on all sorts of wealth and property” where “the possibilities stretch as wide as the congressional imagination might take them”.
The Biden administration, which is responding to the Moore case, has argued in its briefs to the Supreme Court that invalidating the mandatory repatriation tax “could cost the government approximately $340 billion over the next decade” and “potentially far more” if the court were also to call into question other longstanding federal taxes.
A broad decision in the Moore case could lead to “whole parts of tax law being disrupted”, said Dave Kautter, who was assistant secretary for tax policy at the US Treasury under Donald Trump and helped draft the bill being challenged.
Congress’s ability to tax unrealised gains on securities dealers’ portfolios were among those that could be put in jeopardy, said Kautter, who is now a partner at RSM.
Gary Scanlon, principal in the Washington national tax practice at KPMG, said that a ruling could also put at risk taxes on other forms of unrealised income such as that earned through partnerships or foreign subsidiaries. “A decision for the Moores, broad or narrow, will most certainly require looking at each of those provisions,” he said.
The Biden administration claimed in its briefs that the Moores are in effect seeking to impose an “artificial and atextual limit” on Congress’ taxing powers, and that the legal issue at the heart of the case would not have any bearing on a potential wealth tax.
President Joe Biden has said his proposed billionaires’ tax, which would compel those with a net worth of more than $100mn to pay a 25 per cent levy on net changes to their wealth, would generate $440bn in revenues over the next decade. An early version of the policy was voted down in the Senate, but the bill was reintroduced by Democrats in the House of Representatives last week.
While the Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, its recent Republican appointees have sometimes crossed ideological lines to side with liberal justices.
However, the Moore case was politicised even before the scheduled arguments, with Democratic senators calling for conservative Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself after he was interviewed for The Wall Street Journal by one of the lawyers representing the couple. Alito refused, writing in a statement that “there was nothing out of the ordinary about the interviews in question”.
While Republicans remain implacably opposed to wealth taxes, some GOP figures have lined up behind the government’s position in the case, including former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who was among the drafters of the mandatory repatriation tax law.
At a Brookings Institution event in September, Ryan called Moore v US a “misguided challenge” adding: “I’m not for a wealth tax, but I think if you use this as the argument to spike a wealth tax, you’re going to basically get rid of, I don’t know, a third of the tax code . . . Be careful what you ask for.”
In a recent speech at the DC Fintech Week conference, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse addressed the company’s regulatory hurdles. He expressed his views on the cryptocurrency landscape in the United States.
Ripple CEO Warns Of US Risking Market Share Loss
According to a Fortune Magazine report, Garlinghouse acknowledged during his speech that despite Ripple’s success in court against the SEC, some US banks must be more cautious about engaging meaningfully with cryptocurrencies.
Garlinghouse attributed this reluctance to the perception that the US government and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) are “hostile to the crypto industry.”
While Ripple’s court victory in July was seen as a positive development, Garlinghouse believes that the SEC’s overall approach, coupled with Chairman Gary Gensler’s characterization of crypto as the “Wild West,” is hindering the industry’s growth in the US.
Garlinghouse emphasized that while the US has hostility towards crypto, other countries actively welcome crypto companies and investments by providing clear regulatory policies.
As a result, the US risks losing its market share and failing to capitalize on its early advantage in the crypto space. Garlinghouse expressed his belief that the US can still become a leader in the industry but highlighted the urgency for clear and constructive regulatory frameworks to be established.
CEO Vows To Escalate Legal Battle With SEC To Supreme Court
Given the challenges faced in the US, Garlinghouse announced that Ripple would continue to expand its operations in other countries. He revealed that 80% of Ripple’s hiring in the current year will be conducted outside of the US, reflecting the company’s need to operate in more favorable regulatory environments.
Garlinghouse emphasized the importance of creating a hospitable environment for innovation and growth, suggesting that the current hostility in the US hinders Ripple’s ability to operate effectively within the country.
During the conference, Garlinghouse expressed his willingness to escalate Ripple’s legal battle with the SEC to the Supreme Court.
Garlinghouse stated that Ripple is prepared to pursue legal avenues until a resolution is reached. This firm stance underscores Ripple’s commitment to addressing regulatory uncertainties surrounding XRP.
Brad Garlinghouse’s remarks at the DC Fintech Week conference shed light on the ongoing regulatory challenges faced by Ripple and the wider cryptocurrency industry in the United States.
Despite recent court victories, Ripple encounters obstacles due to perceived hostility and a lack of clear policy guidance. Garlinghouse’s readiness to escalate the legal battle to the Supreme Court demonstrates Ripple’s determination to seek a resolution and establish a constructive regulatory framework.
As Ripple expands its operations globally, the hope remains that the US will adopt more welcoming and supportive regulations to foster innovation and maintain its competitive edge in the evolving cryptocurrency landscape.
As of the current market update, XRP is trading at $0.6902, indicating sideways price movement over the past 24 hours. However, in the fourteen-day timeframe, the token has experienced a notable gain of 13%.
Featured image from Shutterstock, chart from TradingView.com
A Supreme Court dispute over a $15,000 IRS bill may be aimed at a never-enacted tax on billionaires
WASHINGTON (AP) — Charles and Kathleen Moore are about to have their day in the Supreme Court over a $15,000 tax bill they contend is unconstitutional.
The couple from Redmond, Washington, claim they had to pay the money because of their investment in an Indian company from which, as Charles Moore, 62, said in a sworn statement, they “have never received a distribution, dividend, or other payment.”
But significant parts of the story they have told to reach this point seem at odds with public records.
The Moores are the public face of a high court case backed by business and conservative political interests that could call into question other parts of the U.S. tax code and rule out a much-discussed but never-enacted tax on wealth. The case is set for arguments on Dec. 5.
The Moores are the latest example of plaintiffs whose lawsuits seem to simply be exercising their legal rights, but whose cases are backed by others with enormous amounts of money or a consequential social issue at stake. The Moores sought help from the anti-regulatory Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Underscoring the case’s importance at a recent Heritage Foundation event, lawyer Paul Clement said, “The constitutionality of a wealth tax may well be decided in the context of this case.”
Details of the Moores’ involvement with the company, initially called KisanKraft Machine Tools Private Limited, were first reported by Tax Notes, which caters to tax professionals. The public documents are filings with the Indian government.
At issue in the case is a provision of the 2017 tax bill enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by then-President Donald Trump. The law applies to companies that are owned by Americans, but do their business in foreign countries. It imposes a one-time tax on investors’ shares of profits that have not been passed along to them, in order to offset other tax benefits. The measure is expected to generate $340 billion in tax revenues.
The Moores, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative think tanks, contend that the provision violates the 16th Amendment, which allows the federal government to impose an income tax on Americans.
The $15,000 tax bill was for the Moores’ share of KisanKraft’s profits.
“If you haven’t received any income, how can you be required to pay income taxes?” Charles Moore asks in a video posted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
But far from being a passive investor with no influence over the company, Moore, who worked at Microsoft during his career in software development, served on KisanKraft’s board of directors for five years.
“The story the Moores told about Charles’ involvement with KisanKraft is directly at odds with the fiduciary responsibilities of an individual holding a board seat for an Indian company,” Mindy Herzfeld, a professor of tax practice at the University of Florida law school, wrote in Tax Notes.
And there are other indications of Moore’s more extensive involvement with KisanKraft than his testimony indicated. The company paid for his travel to India four times and he made at least two investments beyond the $40,000 stake he put up in 2006.
Moore also was prepared to invest an another roughly $250,000. That money was ultimately returned by KisanKraft, along with 12% interest.
One other inconsistency is that while the Moores say they jointly invested the money, only Charles Moore’s name appears in company documents.
The couple and their lawyers did not disclose any of that information in legal filings in three different federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
“The original declaration on which the case is built is full of lies,” said Reuven Avi-Yonah, an international tax expert at the University of Michigan law school.
In a brief conversation with The Associated Press, Kathleen Moore said she and her husband would not discuss the case and referred questions to their lawyers. Andrew Grossman, the Moore’s lead attorney, did not respond to messages seeking comment.
The omissions, along with the Moores’ failure to take advantage of other legal options that would have deferred, if not eliminated, their tax liability make Avi-Yonah and other experts in international tax law suspect the case was manufactured to get at a larger issue, the tax on billionaires that has been proposed by some prominent Democrats but never enacted.
A wealth tax would apply not to the incomes of the very richest Americans, but their assets, like stock holdings, that now only get taxed when they are sold.
“There really was no reason for the court to take it on, other than to send a signal to warn off the Congress from passing a billionaire tax,” said Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
Other provisions of the tax code could be upended by the court’s decision, including measures relating to partnerships, limited liability companies and other business formations, Rosenthal said.
Changes to those provisions also could affect some justices’ finances.
Chief Justice John Roberts holds a one-eighth interest worth up to $15,000 in an Irish partnership that owns a cottage in county Limerick, Ireland, and Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, Ginni, owns a limited liability company that generated between $50,000 and $100,000 in income last year from Nebraska real estate, according to the justices’ financial disclosure forms.
Two other recent Supreme Court cases advanced by conservative interests also raised questions about whether facts had been manipulated to get the disputes in front of the court. One of those involved a wedding website designer in Colorado who did not want to work with same-sex couples and a public high school football coach in Washington who wanted to pray on the field.
Rosenthal said that “the ugly facts matter” and that the justices could return the Moores’ case to a lower court without ruling on it.
Charles Moore said in his sworn statement that he agreed to invest in the company that was being formed by his friend and former colleague at Microsoft, Ravindra “Ravi” Kumar Agrawal, because he liked the business plan and trusted his friend.
“Moreover, I thought KisanKraft was formed for a noble purpose and had the potential to improve the lives of small and marginal farmers in India,” Moore said.
The case had already kicked up ethical questions. Senate Democrats had asked Justice Samuel Alito to step aside from the case because of his interactions with David Rivkin, another lawyer who also is representing the Moores. The Democrats said Alito had cast doubt on his ability to judge the case fairly because he sat for four hours of Wall Street Journal opinion page interviews with an editor at the newspaper and Rivkin.
Alito rejected the demands in a four-page statement issued by the court in which he said there “is no valid reason” for his recusal.
___
Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein contributed to this report.
___
This story has been corrected to reflect that Mindy Herzfeld is a professor of tax practice at the University of Florida law school, not director of the master’s program in international tax.
US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of 30% Developer Tax on Apple App Store
Apple is now legally allowed to keep its taxation policy. As Justice Elena Kagan has ruled, the latest petition filed by Epic Games against Apple is declined.
US Supreme Court has granted Apple Inc (NASDAQ: AAPL) permission to keep its App Store payment rules. It means that a 30% tax imposed on application developers tapping on the App Store will stay, despite Epic Games‘ request to allow developers to direct users to different purchasing options.
Apple App Store’s Policy
As per Apple’s policy, the company charges a 30% fee for apps and in-app purchases on the iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, and macOS App Store. Specifically, Apple takes a 30% cut from app developers who make over $1 million through the App Store on an annual basis. With a boom in the non-fungible tokens (NFTs) industry, creators called for lifting the tax and exempting NFTs from the policy. In response, Apple provided specific rules for NFTs in its App Store guidelines and banned apps from offering exclusive access to NFT owners, or from linking their users to third-party sites where they might buy, sell, and mint outside the Apple ecosystem, thus evading the Apple tax.
The tax has been the primary driver of growth in recent years for a company. The fees collectively contributed to Apple’s $78.1 billion in services revenue in the fiscal year 2022. However, the revenue came along with protests from companies against the tax.
Apple’s Victory Against Epic Games
Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, has been one of those accusing the company of breaking antitrust laws by forcing app makers to pay their 30% fees. In 2020, Epic Games sued Apple in federal court over its policy for the first time, and the legal process has been lasting for 3 years, with mixed success for both parties.
After an antitrust probe by the US Justice Department into the App Store’s fees and policies, it was ruled that Apple was not violating antitrust law and was not a monopolist. In response, Epic Games appealed the ruling and claimed that the original court “reached the wrong answer” and “made multiple legal errors.”
Next, Apple removed Fortnite from Apple’s App Store for violating its policies by launching its own in-app payment system.
In 2021, a US court ruled that Apple could not stop app developers from directing users to third-party payment options. But it also concluded that Epic failed to demonstrate Apple was operating an illegal monopoly.
In April this year, Epic Games was on top of the battle, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California defended the game developer and ruled that Apple’s policy was violating state competition laws. The court’s decision gave hope for cryptocurrency and NFT projects willing to add more functionality to their iOS apps.
But now, with the latest update, Apple is legally allowed to keep its taxation policy. As Justice Elena Kagan has ruled, the latest petition filed by Epic Games against Apple is declined.
next
Blockchain News, Cryptocurrency News, Mobile, News, Technology News

Darya is a crypto enthusiast who strongly believes in the future of blockchain. Being a hospitality professional, she is interested in finding the ways blockchain can change different industries and bring our life to a different level.
You have successfully joined our subscriber list.
Indian Supreme Court raps Union government on crypto rules delay: Report
The Indian Supreme Court on July 27 reprimanded the Union government for the lack of crypto regulations in the country, according to a report in a local media outlet.
The Supreme Court in its observation noted that it is “unfortunate” that the government has yet to release any clear guidelines around cryptocurrencies. The observation from the court came amid growing instances of criminal activities involving cryptocurrencies and directed the Union government to bring on record whether it plans to set up any dedicated federal agency to investigate such crypto criminal cases, the local daily reported.
According to the report, Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta said:
“You still don’t have any law, unfortunately. Do you have an agency at the national level to understand these cases and investigate them properly? We want you to identify a national specialised agency, in the national interest.”
The court’s observation came during the hearing of petitions booked in connection with cryptocurrency fraud cases in different states of India. The court asked the government to file a response on whether they are capable of setting up a mechanism to investigate such cases.
The fight for clear government-issued crypto regulations in India has been a long-drawn one. The government started working on a crypto bill on the instructions of the Supreme Court as early as 2018. However, the government is yet to introduce the final draft of the crypto bill despite assuring it would be completed repeatedly over the past four years.
Related: Taxman: India’s new tax policies could prove fatal for crypto industry
While the Indian government is yet to come up with crypto guidelines, it was very quick to impose crypto taxation laws, which came into effect in April 2022. The law was first introduced during the bull market when India became one of the leading crypto markets with a number of crypto unicorns and trading volumes soaring into billions of dollars. However, the tax laws had a drastic impact on the thriving crypto market as the majority of the established firms decided to move away from India due to a lack of regulatory clarity.
Collect this article as an NFT to preserve this moment in history and show your support for independent journalism in the crypto space.
Magazine: Hall of Flame: Wolf Of All Streets worries about a world where Bitcoin hits $1M
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson excoriated her colleagues who voted to strike down race-conscious college admissions policies, accusing the majority of “turning back the clock” on affirmative action.
“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” Jackson wrote in a thundering dissent to the major court ruling Thursday.
“But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life,” she wrote.
“History speaks. In some form, it can be heard forever. The race-based gaps that first developed centuries ago are echoes from the past that still exist today. By all accounts, they are still stark,” Jackson wrote.
Jackson, a nominee of President Joe Biden, is the high court’s newest justice and the first Black woman to sit on the bench.
Her dissent accused the six-member conservative majority of not only ignoring the nation’s long and continuing history of racial discrimination, but also stunting the progress that academic institutions have made to address those social ills.
“No one benefits from ignorance. Although formal race-linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today’s ruling makes things worse, not better,” Jackson wrote.
“The best that can be said of the majority’s perspective is that it proceeds (ostrich-like) from the hope that preventing consideration of race will end racism. But if that is its motivation, the majority proceeds in vain,” the justice wrote.
“If the colleges of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away. It will take longer for racism to leave us. And, ultimately, ignoring race just makes it matter more,” she warned.
The justice also argued that race-conscious college admissions policies benefit society in a multitude of ways, including strengthening the U.S. workforce and business leadership.
“A less diverse pipeline to these top jobs accumulates wealth and power unequally across racial lines, exacerbating racial disparities in a society that already dispenses prestige and privilege based on race,” Jackson wrote.
Vice President Kamala Harris urged everyone to read Brown’s dissent.
“I encourage you to read it because she is a beautiful writer who is compelled by logic and a knowledge of history and a clarity of thinking about where we have been as a country and where we have the potential to go,” Harris said during remarks at the Global Black Economic Forum in New Orleans on Thursday.
The court, she added, is at a point where it hasn’t fully understood the importance of equal opportunity for the American people.
“It is a complete misnomer to suggest this is about [being] colorblind when in fact, it is about being blind to history,” said Harris, the first Black woman to serve as vice president.
Thursday’s ruling dealt with two separate cases related to affirmative action policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
In the Harvard case, the vote on the decision was 6-2, as Jackson took no part in considering the case due to her membership on Harvard’s Board of Overseers. Jackson dissented in the UNC case, where the vote was 6-3.
Her polemical dissent followed another blistering rebuke from liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“The devastating impact of this decision cannot be overstated,” Sotomayor wrote. “The majority’s vision of race neutrality will entrench racial segregation in higher education because racial inequality will persist so long as it is ignored.”
Both dissents were joined by the Justice Elena Kagan, the court’s third liberal.
The majority held that the admissions programs of Harvard and UNC violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because they “unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points.” The clause enshrines that states must apply laws equally to their citizens.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that “We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.”
He noted, however, that universities can still consider race in a prospective student’s application in the context of a “discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”
“In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote.
The liberals rejected the majority’s interpretation of the Constitution.
“It would be deeply unfortunate if the Equal Protection Clause actually demanded this perverse, ahistorical, and counterproductive outcome,” Jackson wrote. “To impose this result in that Clause’s name when it requires no such thing, and to thereby obstruct our collective progress toward the full realization of the Clause’s promise, is truly a tragedy for us all.”
Jackson also took aim at conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s second Black justice, who in a concurring opinion accused Jackson of believing that “almost all of life’s outcomes may be unhesitatingly ascribed to race.”
Thomas “ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here,” Jackson responded in a footnote of her dissent.
Supreme court rules in favor of Coinbase, issues order to move user lawsuit into arbitration
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase in a dispute involving the enforcement of arbitration clauses on June 23, Reuters reported.
The court issued an order to halt proceedings in one of the pending customer lawsuits — Bielski vs. Coinbase — while the exchange followed up on its appeal. A second lawsuit was dismissed by the Supreme Court following a review and will be moved into arbitration.
The ruling — split 5-4 — solidifies arbitration as a viable dispute resolution method, which businesses often prefer over litigation.
It also overturned previous rulings by lower courts, which allowed both lawsuits to proceed even after Coinbase filed an appeal against the initial rejection of its arbitration request.
Arbitration clauses are agreements between parties that require any disputes that arise between them to be resolved through arbitration rather than via courts.
The disputes
Abraham Bielski sued Coinbase after a scammer allegedly stole $30,000 from his account in 2021. The suit argued that the firm had violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by not investigating the case sufficiently and failing to reimburse Bielski.
The second lawsuit — dismissed by the Supreme Court — was filed by a group of Coinbase users who accuse the exchange of false advertising in relation to 2021 sweepstakes that offered Dogecoin in prizes.
Coinbase asked lower courts to force the two cases into arbitration based on its terms of service requiring users to resolve issues via arbitration. The request was denied, which prompted the company to file an appeal in the San Francisco Circuit Court of Appeals.
However, the lower court did not halt the cases despite the appeal being mid-process — forcing Coinbase to turn to the Supreme Court.
Win for arbitration
While the Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for Coinbase and other businesses that rely on arbitration clauses, companies must ensure that their arbitration agreements are transparent and fair to all parties involved.
For users of cryptocurrency platforms, it is essential to read and understand the terms of service before engaging with any platform that involves their hard-earned assets.
The Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Coinbase signifies the recognition of arbitration as a legitimate dispute resolution method and highlights the importance of transparent terms of service for businesses operating within the cryptocurrency industry.
The post Supreme court rules in favor of Coinbase, issues order to move user lawsuit into arbitration appeared first on CryptoSlate.