Plaintiff hired E to sell its cyptocurrency assets for cash. E did so using defendant’s website. The proceeds of sale were stolen from the website allegedly because defendant failed to implement elemental security measures. This decision holds that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration based on its terms of service to which E had agreed. Plaintiff had not designated E its agent for the purpose of entering into contracts. Plaintiff’s claims were not intertwined with the terms of service, which the complaint never mentioned. Plaintiff directly benefited from its contract with E but not from the terms of service that E entered into with defendant to carry out its duties under its contract with plaintiff.