Binance faces US court as judge rejects pre-2019 arbitration

Motion to compel arbitration denied; pre-2019 U.S. claims in court

A New York federal judge, Andrew L. Carter Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, denied Binance’s motion to compel arbitration in Williams v. Binance, allowing U.S. investor claims to proceed in public court. The ruling turns on a February 20, 2019 cutoff and affects users who purchased digital assets before that date, according to Law360.

The court concluded that customers who transacted before February 20, 2019 lacked sufficient notice of an arbitration clause later added to Binance’s terms of use. As a result, those pre-February 20, 2019 claims remain in court rather than private arbitration.

Why the court rejected arbitration for pre-February 20, 2019 claims

Arbitration is a matter of contract, requiring clear notice and user assent. The court found Binance had not shown that U.S. users who traded before the 2019 update were adequately informed of the new dispute-resolution clause.

Because the arbitration clause was introduced on February 20, 2019, the judge determined it could not be enforced retroactively against earlier transactions. Absent proof of notice and assent, those pre-update claims are not subject to compelled arbitration.

With arbitration denied for pre-February 20, 2019 claims, the case moves forward on the public docket. The parties should next address case management, including a scheduling order, preservation obligations, and negotiation of a discovery plan consistent with federal procedure.

Litigation phases are expected to include pleadings-related motion practice and fact discovery in open court, with filings and hearings available on the public docket. Procedural transparency will encompass document exchanges, depositions, and court conferences subject to the judge’s orders.

Following the ruling, Binance emphasized its position on the scope of remaining claims. “In response to our motion on this issue plaintiffs voluntarily and correctly dismissed all claims that accrued on or after Feb. 20, 2019. [We will] vigorously defend the limited claims that remain in this … meritless case,” said Binance.

Implications for crypto arbitration clauses and compliance

Williams v. Binance: notice, assent, and retroactivity standards

crypto-investors?utm_source=openai” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener”>According to Selendy Gay PLLC, the decision reinforces that arbitration clauses require actual or constructive notice and user assent to be enforceable, and attempts to bind earlier conduct through later terms face strict limits. The timing of contract updates matters: adding arbitration on February 20, 2019 could not capture disputes tied to earlier transactions without clear, affirmative notice.

For platforms that regularly update terms of use, risk controls should prioritize conspicuous disclosures, affirmative re-consent mechanisms, and robust records of user assent. These measures reduce litigation risk around retroactivity and ensure dispute-resolution clauses are enforceable.

Open-court litigation: discovery, hearings, and procedural transparency

Keeping pre-2019 claims in open court means discovery, motion hearings, and orders will unfold on a public record. That transparency can sharpen judicial scrutiny of notice practices and contract-update workflows, shaping compliance playbooks across crypto and tech.

At the time of this writing, the figures indicate Binance Coin (BNB) around $614.81 with very high recent volatility near 13.42%. These market figures are contextual and not predictive or advisory.

FAQ about motion to compel arbitration

Why did the court deny Binance’s motion to compel arbitration?

Pre-February 20, 2019 users lacked sufficient notice and assent to the arbitration clause added later, so the clause could not be enforced against those earlier transactions.

Which investor claims remain in U.S. court and which were dismissed or sent to arbitration?

Pre-February 20, 2019 claims remain in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs dismissed claims accruing on or after that date. The order did not send the remaining claims to arbitration.