Superior Court of California denies motions from High 5 Entertainment
The courts found the terms and conditions instated by High 5 Entertainment as unconscionable.
Key points:
– Four motions from High 5 Entertainment were denied by the courts
– These include motions to arbitrate and quashing service of summons
– This marks another lawsuit against sweepstakes operators in the US
The Superior Court of California has denied four of the latest motions pushed by High 5 Entertainment’s legal team.
These included a motion to strike first amended complaint, to quash service of summons, to arbitrate and to compel arbitration.
The lawsuit was first filed on 30 December 2024 and has undergone several motions and hearings.
The latest development has found High 5 Entertainment’s attempts to arbitrate as “unconscionable”.
“High 5 cites the burden of defending in California but shows at most inconvenience. California has significant interests in enforcing its public policies concerning gambling” – Christine Van Aken, Judge of the Superior Court
High 5 Entertainment tried to argue that “the usual presumption is that a court, not an arbitrator, will decide in the first instance whether a dispute is arbitrable. The parties may agree to delegate authority to the arbitrator to decide arbitrability.”
However, the courts concluded that “there is no clear and unmistakable delegation here” and quoted court documents explaining that “any dispute… shall be resolved by a not and not be a subject of the arbitration.”
The plaintiff, Thomas Portugal, initially entered three reasons to argue against arbitration: That the dispute is beyond an arbitration agreement, arbitration would be unconscionable and that the contract itself is illegal and thus void.
Interestingly, as the courts agreed on the first two, they “did not reach the third.”
Good to know: Unconscionable in US law means that the context of the contract was so grossly oppressive or unfair that it would “shock the conscience”
Portugal contested that any contract made with High 5 Entertainment was void, as gambling violates California law and policy.
When discussing this, the courts noted the following: “The resolution of this question presents evidentiary issues about whether the contract in fact is one for illegal gambling that the court declines to reach on the papers; this is a central dispute in the case and would swallow the merits.”
Earlier this year, High 5 Entertainment pulled sweepstakes services from six US states, but California remained on its whitelist.
In the document denying the motion to quash service of summons, the courts concluded: “The court considers the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief.
“High 5 cites the burden of defending in California but shows at most inconvenience. California has significant interests in enforcing its public policies concerning gambling.”
Gambling Insider delivers the latest industry news, in-depth features, and operator reviews that you can trust. Our team combines rigorous editorial standards with decades of specialized expertise to ensure accuracy and fairness. We are committed to delivering clear, impartial, and dependable coverage across the global gambling sector.
