California Court Grants Fliff Arbitration Request

GamingToday.com is an independent sports news and information service. GamingToday.com has partnerships with some of the top legal and licensed sportsbook companies in the US. Gaming Today may receive referral compensation from the sportsbook company when you claim a bonus offer or promotion through a link on this site. Although the relationships we have with sportsbook companies may influence the order in which we place companies on the site, all reviews, recommendations, and opinions are wholly our own. They are the recommendations from our authors and contributors who are avid sports fans themselves.

For more information, please read How We Rate Sportsbooks, Privacy Policy, or Contact Us with any concerns you may have.

Gaming Today is licensed and regulated to operate in AZ, CO, CT, DC, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MS, NJ, NV, NY, OH, ON, PA, TN, VA, VT, WV, and WY.

The long-awaited resolution of the class action lawsuit filed against Fliff in June of the previous year by plaintiff Bishoy Nessim has concluded with a decisive ruling.

In a court session on Wednesday, Judge Sunshine S. Sykes, presiding over the California court, delivered her verdict favoring the defendant. The ruling concurred with Fliff’s assertion that the arbitration clause embedded in the terms and conditions of the sweepstakes sportsbook holds legal weight.

This development marks a pivotal moment in the legal dispute, bringing clarity to the contested issue surrounding the binding nature of the arbitration agreement, not solely for Fliff’s benefit but for other gaming entities.

Sykes, in her order granting Fliff’s arbitration request, supported the defendant’s argument that the legal jurisdiction of Pennsylvania should preside over the proceedings. This stance, she says, holds true even though a considerable portion of Fliff’s operations have been moved to Texas.

Nessim challenged this assertion, arguing that relocating the sportsbook to Texas weakens the connection to Pennsylvania. However, Judge Sykes dismissed Nessim’s argument, emphasizing the relationship between Pennsylvania and the involved parties primarily rooted in Fliff’s principal place of business “at the time of contracting.”

In her judgment, she wrote:

“Despite the seeming unfairness of the situation as it exists, with Fliff being able to claim a connection to Pennsylvania despite it having moved to Texas where it now runs its business from, the Court finds, because Fliff’s principal place of business “at the time of contracting” was Pennsylvania, there is a substantial relationship between Pennsylvania and the Parties.”

Related Pages: Best Sports Betting Apps | Sportsbook Promos | California Sports Betting

Sykes Identifies Lack of Context for “Unsophisticated Party” in Arbitration Agreement

With the court granting Fliff’s motion to move the case to arbitration, the legal proceedings have ended in the courtroom.

Judge Sykes acknowledged the ongoing debate over arbitration agreements in the legal system and provided a detailed discussion on the nature of Fliff’s arbitration agreement.

While recognizing that the agreement referenced American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules, Sykes pointed out a lack of sufficient context for an “unsophisticated party.” Despite this, she concluded that the court could determine the “arbitrability” of the case, which she delved into.

A noteworthy aspect of the breakdown was examining Nessim’s claim that he had no other alternatives in the market. Nessim argued in court that Fliff was operating as an illegal sportsbook.

Judge Sykes pointed out the contradiction in Nessim’s position, emphasizing that if he genuinely thought it was illegal, he could have opted for many other illicit options in the California black market.

In Search of a $5 Million Payday

On June 6, Bishoy Nessim filed a lawsuit against Fliff, alleging that the operator was running an illegal online sportsbook, thus infringing upon the Wire Act, the state’s Unfair Competition Law, and anti-bookmaking statutes.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit sought $5 million in compensation and urged for the immediate cessation of the sportsbook’s operations within the state.

“Despite that public rebuke, Fliff facilitates the ability for California residents to make online sports wagers to win real money without any approvals, regulations, oversight, or taxing,” the suit read.

“To avoid any regulation or legal oversight, Fliff claims to be a free-to-play operator of sweepstakes with the chance for users to ‘play sports prediction games for entertainment.’ But, in the real world, alleged sports prediction games are nothing more than online sports gambling.”

The plaintiff claimed that his losses on Fliff amounted to approximately $7,000 to $8,000.

The lawsuit asserted that Fliff is available for free download on both Apple and Android devices, allowing users to participate in gameplay using Fliff Coins, utilizing the well-known ‘free-to-play’ business model.

The claim further alleges Fliff attracts consumers with a free option and later guides them into real-money gameplay, referred to as ‘Fliff Cash.’

About the Author
Tebearau Egbe

Tebearau Egbe

Tebearau Egbe is a seasoned gambling writer with over four years of experience. Armed with a Masters degree in philosophy, Egbe possesses a unique ability to dissect complex industry developments, distilling them into insightful narratives that captivate readers.

Get connected with us on Social Media