Two months after Bishoy Nessim filed his California class action lawsuit against sweepstakes sports betting site Fliff, Fliff has filed its response in the case.
The primary thrust of the motion is that, upon setting up his account, Nessim agreed to Fliff’s terms and conditions. Within those terms, customers agree that any legal challenges from the customer need to be handled not in the courts, but through arbitration.
The motion also disputes Nessim’s description of how Fliff’s model works. Nessim claimed you can purchase Fliff Cash, which has real-money value and can be cashed out, directly.
Nessim alleged he lost around $7,500 wagering on the sweepstake platform through buying Fliff Cash directly and contends the product violates California law and is running an illegal sportsbook.
Within the motion, Fliff also pointed out that the terms and conditions are enforceable under Pennsylvania law, as that is where the company is headquartered in Philadelphia.
BetMGM made a similar argument in its pending case in New Jersey filed by Sam A. Antar. The company noted that the Ts & Cs require any disputes to be handled in arbitration.
Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes will rule on the motion on Sept. 1.