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.
“Nessim conspicuously avoids referencing this mandatory arbitration provision (or indeed, any of Fliff’s Terms of Use or Sweepstakes Rules) in the Complaint for good reason – it operates as a total bar to the claims he attempts to assert in this Court,” the motion read.
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.
“To be clear, as indicated by the applicable Terms of Use and Sweepstakes Rules, Fliff Cash is never sold. While the dispute over Plaintiff’s participation in the Fliff sweepstakes games using Fliff Cash need not be resolved to decide this motion, this core defect in Plaintiff’s claim should be resolved in an individual arbitration as required by the Sweepstakes Rules to which the Plaintiff agreed,” the motion noted in a footnote.
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.
