Fliff California Lawsuit Sent to Arbitration

Arbitration will significantly complicate the certification of additional members in the lawsuit, limiting the potential damages awarded.

Jan 13, 2024 • 15:52 ET • 4 min read
Puka Nacua Los Angeles Rams NFL
Photo By - USA TODAY Sports

In a victory for Fliff, a California court agreed with the sweepstakes sportsbook, sending the lawsuit to arbitration.

Bishoy Nessim filed a multi-million-dollar class action lawsuit against Fliff in June, claiming the company was operating an illegal sportsbook. But instead of going to court, the case will now go to third-party arbitration.

Fliff argued that Nessim waived his right to take the case to court when he agreed to the company’s terms and conditions. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes of the Central District of California agreed with Fliff.

Arbitration makes it much more difficult to certify other members in a class action lawsuit, greatly reducing the number of plaintiffs — and thus any potential damages awarded.

Fliff also scores on rules jurisdiction

Fliff runs a social sportsbook and primarily operates in states without legal sports betting, and contends that it operates sweepstakes since customers are not allowed to place bets with real money.

In Fliff’s model, customers place bets using “Fliff Cash” or “Fliff Coins,” which are either bought with real money or “won” in one of the company’s “no-cost” sweepstakes.

Nessim contends that Fliff isn’t a sweepstakes, since the winners of its giveaways aren’t random. Fliff claims it adheres to Pennsylvania sweepstakes rules, which is where the company was once based.

Nessim argues that since Fliff is now headquartered in Texas, it should be held to the rules governing sweepstakes in the Lone Star State. However, Judge Sykes felt there was sufficient evidence to tie Fliff to its Pennsylvania roots.

“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, 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.”

- Judge Sunshine S. Sykes, Central District of California

Google News
Stay updated with the latest picks, odds, and news! Tap the star to add us to your favorites on Google News to never miss a story.

Pages related to this topic

Popular Content

Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo