•  
  •  
 

University of Miami Business Law Review

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous characterization of legal study as “prediction” takes on renewed significance as courts confront novel jurisdictional questions in blockchain cases, particularly as technological innovation accelerates and transforms the digital landscape. Among these developments is the metaverse, which combines blockchain financial technology with early visions of the internet as a distinct realm for social interaction.

Concrete problems already emerging in these immersive environments underscore the stakes: Platform‑engineered anonymity and scale make user‑to‑user harms effectively unpoliceable, what recent work calls the “veil of scale,” frustrating redress even when laws apply. Amid this difficulty in identifying bad actors, scholars have noted various legal blind spots. Decentralized virtual‑property deals and smart‑contract disputes expose recognition and enforcement gaps for Blockchain Dispute Resolution (BDR) awards. Interoperable payment rails and crypto flows create anti‑money‑laundering blind spots. XR usage generates privacy, safety, and psychological harms—especially for children. This Article provides a court‑centric framework that maps how judges will address these and other gaps in concrete disputes—for example, can the U.S. government prosecute adults coercing minors into inappropriate conduct in social‑VR spaces despite diffuse, cross‑border actors? Additionally, what is the appropriate forum and applicable law for adjudicating metaverse‑enabled frauds with scattered technical touchpoints?

Through a novel synthesis of jurisdictional developments in virtual spaces from the 1990s through the present, this Article evaluates past scholarly predictions, identifying key methodological successes and shortcomings. This analysis reveals that predictive methodologies grounded in courts’ preference for incremental adaptation and resolving conflicts based on workable solutions consistently outperform those based primarily on novel technological characteristics. Building on Swire’s elephants-and-mice intuition and Putnam & Martin’s “veil of scale,” this Article predicts that jurisdiction and enforcement will gravitate toward administrable anchors (e.g., platforms, servers, domestic operations, residency, and corporate registrations), a tendency reflected in recent crypto cases. As in recent digital asset cases, courts will pragmatically tie disputes to reachable infrastructure.

Download

Share

COinS