Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Ariz.: Cryptocurrency manipulation case claims mostly sent to arbitration, (Aug 31, 2026)

By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.

Visual ergonomics of website hypertext placed investor who opened account with online cryptocurrency exchange on adequate notice to form arbitration agreement by clicking the hypertext.

A federal district court judge in Phoenix, Arizona has again dismissed antitrust claims filed by a digital coin purchaser against an operator of a website that tracks cryptocurrencies for investors. The cryptocurrency purchaser alleged that CoinMarketCap OpCo LLC (CMC) and BAM Trading Services Inc. d/b/a Binance.US (BAM) suppressed and manipulated information regarding the cryptocurrency in order to depress the value and enhance the value of other currencies the companies had purchased. The court held that the Sherman Act claims were "far too scant for the Court to meaningfully understand the contours of this claim." The court compelled arbitration of state law claims and stayed the case pending the completion of arbitration (Cox v. CoinMarketCap OpCo LLC, No. 3:21-cv-08197-SMB (D. Ariz. Aug. 26, 2026)).

Background. HEX is a cryptocurrency that is maintained through the Ethereum blockchain software platform. CoinMarketCap OpCo LLC (CMC) operates a website that tracks the prices, trading volumes, and other aspects of the various cryptocurrencies, and ranks the cryptocurrencies according to performance metrics. BAM Trading Services Inc. d/b/a Binance.US (BAM) is an online cryptocurrency exchange in which CMC has an ownership interest and/or other affiliation, and upon which HEX and other cryptocurrencies are traded. Cox is an individual investor who had purchased HEX cryptocurrencies; he has filed a putative class action lawsuit against CMC and BAM, alleging that CMC and BAM suppressed and manipulated information regarding HEX in order to depress the value of HEX, to the enhancement of other cryptocurrencies in which CMC and BAM had an interest. The complaint alleged counts under the Commodities Exchange Act and monopolization under the Sherman Act.

In February, the court dismissed the first amended complaint, holding that it was how BAM had monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for cryptocurrency ranking and information services. Also, there was no evidence of an injury in the market for cryptocurrency ranking and information services. While the injury might be related to that market, or even flow from that market, the purchaser must experience an injury in the relevant market.

Cox filed a Second Amended Complaint. CMC moved for dismissal of the complaint as it pertained to CMC, and BAM moved to compel arbitration of the claims asserted against it.

Jurisdiction. The judge granted CMC's motion for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction alleged over CMC in the First Amended Complaint was based upon the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA), which expansively permits service of process nationwide; the service of the First Amended Complaint had earlier been found valid on appeal. The Second Amended Complaint had not CEA allegations, so the nationwide service provision of the Clayton Act did not apply because its nationwide jurisdiction applies to a "suit, action, or proceeding under the antitrust laws against a corporation" [emphasis supplied], and CMC is a Limited Liability Company entity and not a corporation. CMC was thus dismissed, with prejudice, as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Arbitration. The court granted BAM's motion to compel arbitration. Here, when Cox opened his online account in March 2020 with BAM on BAM's website, he clicked the hypertext link that indicated, among other things, acceptance of the arbitration provision of BAM's standard contract. The hypertext as appeared on the website was visible and of adequate contrast so that a prudent investor would see it and read the text of the agreement. Cox's clicking of this "readily apparent" hyperlink served to form a valid arbitration agreement. The court further found that the May 2023 version of the agreement applied because Cox, having given BAM his email address when he initiated his account, should have heeded the subsequent email updates to the account agreement sent out by BAM, which Cox did receive.

The "Terms of Use" in the May 2023 agreement expressly delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and was not unconscionable under the circumstances.

Arbitration-waiver. The court found that BAM had waived its rights to arbitrate the Sherman Act claims. BAM here had contended that it "only knows what Plaintiff pleaded" and had insufficient knowledge of Cox's complaints with respect to the Sherman Act. But BAM's responses in the prior complaints reflected its knowledge of Cox's Sherman Act claims, and BAM did not waive them. In such regard, the court noted that BAM itself had drafted the arbitration agreement and the court construed it contra proferentem against BAM.

But on another motion by BAM, the Sherman Act claims were dismissed by the court for failure to state a claim. Here, Cox's Sherman Act claims were "far too scant for the Court to meaningfully understand the contours of this claim."

The Case is No. 3:21-cv-08197-SMB.

Judge: Brnovich, S.

Attorneys: Alexander Michael Kolodin (Davillier Law Group LLC) for Ryan Cox. Andrea Suzanne Tazioli (NCP Law PLLC) for CoinMarketCap OpCo LLC.

Companies: CoinMarketCap OpCo LLC

Cases: Antitrust ArizonaNews