Defendant Electronic Arts (EA) Fails To Shoot Down Plaintiff J.R.
J.R., a minor, sued video game producer EA. J.R. "alleged that EA deceptively induced players of Apex Legends, 'especially impressionable minors,' to purchase digital game-specific currency in order 'to purchase cosmetic items, characters, lootboxes, and other items within the Apex Legends virtual world.'” The trial court denied EAs motion to compel arbitration and EA appealed. J.R. v. Electronic Arts, Inc. E080414 (4/2 1/1724) (Menetrez, Fields, Raphael).
EA argued that the arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated the decision as to whether to arbitrate to the arbitrator. Indeed, the trial court did not disagree with the clarity of the delegation provision. However, the trial judge concluded that J.R., invoking his right to do so under Family Code § 6170, effectively disaffirmed the entire contract, including the delegation clause.
EA argued that the disaffirmance was ineffective, because J.R. failed to specifically refer to the delegation provision.
The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed. It held that the following language was effective to disaffirm the contract and every part thereof, which logically included the delegation clause: "J.R. 'disaffirm[s] the entirety of any [user agreement], contract or agreement that was accepted through [his] EA account.' J.R. II thereby unequivocally disaffirmed 'any . . . contract or agreement' that he entered into with EA through his EA account. (Italics
added.)"
1Family Code. 6710. "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a contract of a minor may be disaffirmed by the minor before majority or within a reasonable time afterwards or, in case of the minor's death within that1 period, by the minor's heirs or personal representative."
BONUS. Dallas episode: the big reveal. Who shot J.R.?
Comments