On-Line Gaming Was The Context For The Case.
The world of on-line gaming presents challenges to companies wishing to bind players to arbitration. As our next case illustrates, gamers are likely to be treated as unsophisticated consumers with unequal bargaining power. Pavel Gostev v. Skillz Platform, Inc., A164407 (1/2 2/28/23) (Miller, Stewart, Richman).
Gostev, a gamer, alleged that Skillz Platform, Inc.'s game amounted to gambling and that it engaged in predator practices. By establishing an account, tapping next, and clicking on a hyperlink to Terms of Service, Gostev allegedly agreed that disputes would be delegated to an arbitrator to decide. Skillz moved to compel arbitration, and Gostev argued that the agreement failed to delegate decisions to an arbitrator by clear and unmistakeable evidence, and that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. The trial court agreed with Gostev, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
The problem with the delegation argument was that language that delegated decisions concerning disputes about Terms, Services, and Product was not clear enough. It could mean that the threshold dispute was delegated to the arbitrator to decide, or it could mean that only substantive disputes about the Terms, Services, and Product were delegated. The agreement also referenced the rules of the AAA which have sometimes been applied successfully to make a delegation argument. But the Court of Appeal explained that here, where the consumer was likely to be in a position of unequal bargaining power and sophistication, it would not accept reference to AAA rules as good enough to establish effective delegation.
The agreement was a take-it-or leave-it agreement, and hence, there was some degree of procedural unconscionability. Also the agreement was one-sided to substantively favor the company: plaintiff's monetary damages were limited to $50, arbitration was to be held in San Francisco, though the consumer was located in Washington, there was a one-year limitations period for bringing a claim, and a split of arbitration fees and costs limited consumer rights under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Given the procedural and substantive unconscionability, the court agreed the arbitration agreement was unenforceable.
Comments