On February 26, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings in a case brought by a retired professional alleging deceptive sales practices, replevin, negligence, and voluntary assumption of a duty against an operator of cryptocurrency ATMs. The plaintiff claimed that in December 2024, he was the victim of a scam in which he received a fraudulent computer message directing him to call purported technical support. Upon calling the number provided, the plaintiff was instructed to deposit thousands of dollars into cryptocurrency ATMs over three transactions. The plaintiff complied with the instructions, believing them to be legitimate, despite on-screen warnings about potential scams. The cryptocurrency ATM operator moved to compel arbitration, stating that, in order to complete each ATM transaction, the plaintiff had assented to the terms and conditions, which contained a broad arbitration clause.

The court found that the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the court determined that challenges to the contract’s unconscionability were directed at the agreement as a whole, rather than the arbitration clause in particular, and therefore must be decided by an arbitrator. The court rejected arguments that there was no clear delegation of arbitrability and concluded that the agreement’s incorporation of the American Arbitration Association’s commercial rules demonstrated the parties’ intent for the arbitrator to decide such questions. The order requires the plaintiff to arbitrate his claims and denies without prejudice requests to dismiss the action outright or strike class allegations. The court directed the parties to file a joint status report on arbitration by April 30.