Abstract

The proliferation of digital asset platforms has ushered in a new era of cross-border B2B contracting, wherein arbitration clauses are routinely incorporated in standard-form agreements. While arbitration remains the preferred mechanism for resolving disputes in this context, such clauses are increasingly subject to jurisdictional challenges that threaten their effectiveness. This article critically examines the procedural vulnerabilities that render arbitration agreements in B2B digital asset contracts susceptible to jurisdictional challenges.

The analysis focuses on recurrent pathologies in platform-drafted clauses, including indeterminate or conflicting jurisdictional language, failure to designate a clear seat of arbitration, unilateral modifications by dominant contracting parties, and deficient mechanisms for obtaining valid consent through digital contracting modalities.

The article surveys the doctrinal bases upon which tribunals and national courts have accepted or dismissed jurisdictional objections, with particular attention to questions of consent, formal validity, public policy limitations, and mandatory rules. Adopting a comparative approach, the article sheds light on how jurisdictional objections are strategically raised and procedurally handled across different legal systems in the context of digital asset platform agreements.

This paper will be part of the TDM Special Issue on "Cryptocurrencies and Other Digital Assets in Arbitration". More information here www.transnational-dispute-management.com/news.asp?key=2080