X v Coinbase Ireland Ltd ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2023:5305 is of interest to the blog for its imho shaky finding on the law applicable to the claim. The case is a so-called pig butchering scam, a term I had never before heard of. Sites like these will tell you what it means. Essentially, in the case at issue the claimant had acquired cryptocoins on a Coinbase account and was subsequently tricked into transferring those into a ‘wallet’ over which she lost control.
Coinbase is defendant, for the fraudsters clearly are nowhere to be found. The claim in a variety of ways attempts to have Coinbase cover the €170,000 or so damage. Jurisdiction is established per A17 ff Brussels Ia (the consumer title). [4.2.4] its activities are found to have been directed at The Netherlands even without it having a Dutch banking licence: it facilitated use of the Dutch iDEAL payment option; it listed The Netherlands as one of the countries in which crypto coin exchange services were available; it offered a Dutch app and a Dutch website; it had paid for Coinbase to appear in Dutch-instructed search engine queries for coinbase and for a link to its website following up on such queries.
Applicable law is held to be Dutch law, applying Rome I. The court first asks itself whether the claim is covered by Rome I or Rome II. With reference to the need for consistency between Brussels Ia and the Rome Regulations (regular readers of the blog know that I am not convinced; see eg tag ‘consistency’ or ‘reading across’ in the search box of the blog) and to CJEU Reliantco, the court holds it is Rome I that is engaged. This is despite the claim largely being based on unfair trading, a statutorily circumscribed tort in The Netherlands. In that respect the claim echoes CJEU Winkingerhof, yet the Dutch court here opts for contract in Sharpston AG Ergo style: [4.3.4] without the contract between the parties there would not currently have been a claim.
The court’s application of Article 6 Rome I then cuts many corners: it notes Coinbase’s argument that its GTCs identify Irish law as the lex contractus, acknowledges that per Rome I (only) mandatory Dutch law trumps Irish law, yet then [4.3.7] rules out the entire application of the lex voluntatis in the GTCs merely on the basis that applying Irish law would be ‘too onerous’ for the consumer, ‘if only’ because it is much more difficult to find legal advisers in The Netherlands with knowledge of Irish law. All of that is sloppy at best.
The remainder of the judgment then dismisses the claim on the basis of Dutch law.
Geert.
gavc law - geert van calster 