Arbitration clauses in NFTs’ consumer contracts

Abstract

This dissertation attempts to give answers to the potential influence of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) on international arbitration and more specifically in the arbitration of disputes involving consumers. This research deals with a longstanding legal issue, the interplay of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and arbitration and questions how this issue will affect consumers of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). Blockchain technology has created flourishing digital markets within which NFTs are sold. Despite the relative newness of these markets, several disputes have already arisen. A recently issued court decision from the UK appeal court concerning the Nifty Gateway case has ruled for the first-time on a matter related to NFT markets. This case highlights the issue of including arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. This is the core subject of the present dissertation. The main question, around which this research was conducted, is whether the Brussels I Regulation (recast) has any effect on arbitration procedures despite the fact that arbitration is excluded from the scope of the Regulation. In parallel, the protection of consumer rights is an underlying issue that constitutes the main focus of the research. These aspects are a vitally important consideration as we enter a new era of digital markets where arbitration clauses may be included as a dispute resolution mechanism. The research question is: what is the appropriate dispute resolution method for NFTs? Should NFT arbitration clauses become indiscriminately accepted and should NFT disputes be adjudicated solely by self-regulatory arbitration panels, or is there a need for revision of such arbitration clauses? If a revision is necessary under what circumstances and provisions should such NFT arbitration clauses be reviewed?