When plaintiffs created their Coinbase accounts, they agreed to the “Coinbase User Agreement,” which contains an arbitration provision. They later opted into the Sweepstakes’ “Official Rules,” which include a forum selection clause providing that California courts have exclusive jurisdiction over any controversies regarding the sweepstakes.  This decision affirms the district court’s determination that the arbitration agreement did not delegate to the arbitrator the issue of whether the arbitration provision was superseded by the parties’ later agreement to the forum selection clause.  The arbitration agreement provided that the arbitrator would decide issues relating to the “scope” of the arbitration provision–i.e., the types of claims it covered, not whether it was superseded by a later agreement between the parties.  The decision also affirms the district court’s determination that the later agreement to a forum selection clause without any mention of arbitration as a potential forum superseded the earlier arbitration provision, rendering it unenforceable.