Huuuge arbitration ruling: Status, Rulings and What It Means for Players

What this case is about

Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc., 944 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2019), No. 18-36017, is a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on whether a social casino app can force a player into arbitration.

Sean Wilson sued Huuuge, Inc. in a class case, and Huuuge asked the court to compel arbitration under its terms of use.

The appeal came from D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05276-RBL (Judge Leighton). It was argued on 29 August 2019 and filed on 20 December 2019. The ruling is a landmark in Social Casino Lawsuits.

Who is covered

This is an appeal ruling, not a settlement. Plaintiff-appellee Sean Wilson brought the underlying claim, with Edelson PC as class counsel, against Huuuge, Inc.

The panel was M. Margaret McKeown (author), Jay S. Bybee and Fernando J. Gaitan Jr. (by designation). The ruling speaks for Ninth Circuit courts and concerns users who accepted an app's terms only by downloading it. State coverage is on Every Gambling Lawsuit in Washington.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. The Ninth Circuit ruled only on arbitration, so it awarded no money and set up no claim process.

The class case that followed this ruling is a separate matter with its own page and its own settlement. Filing a settlement claim is free wherever a settlement exists, and GamblingLawsuits.org is not a law firm and not a claims administrator.

What the court decided

The Ninth Circuit decided this appeal on 20 December 2019. The panel affirmed the denial of Huuuge's motion to compel arbitration.

Under Washington law, a browsewrap agreement (terms offered by a link rather than a click) binds a user only with reasonable notice.

Huuuge's terms were reachable only by scrolling past multiple screens in the app store, or through an obscure settings menu, so the user lacked that notice. The court held there was no agreement to arbitrate, and the case stayed in court.

The decision is the standard citation on app-store browsewrap terms and controlled Benson v. Double Down. It follows the company's wider record under Huuuge Lawsuits.

Why it matters

The decision limits an app company's ability to compel arbitration when its terms are hard to find. It controlled the companion Double Down appeal, Benson v. Double Down.

The underlying question, whether virtual chips are a "thing of value" under Washington law, is explained in Why Virtual Chips Count as Gambling in Washington State. The all-state view is under Gambling Lawsuits in United States.

Questions people ask

What did Wilson v. Huuuge decide?

The Ninth Circuit held that Huuuge's browsewrap terms did not bind the player because he lacked reasonable notice. It affirmed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration.

Is there a payout from this ruling?

No. The ruling concerns arbitration only. Money in the related class case is covered on its own page.

Does it apply outside Washington?

The holding applies Washington contract law. Courts in other states look at their own law on notice and consent.

Related cases

• Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc.: the underlying class case, settled with final approval.
• Benson v. Double Down Interactive, LLC: the companion Ninth Circuit arbitration appeal, 18-36015, decided by judgment.