A California judge has ordered that the Fliff claim be arbitrated.

Fliff and other gaming companies secured a win as a California court upheld Fliff's claim that the arbitration clause in the sweepstakes sportsbook's terms is binding.

Judge granting the case's move to arbitration, agreed with Fliff's argument that Pennsylvania law should apply.

The court also addressed Nessim's claim that Fliff was an illegal sportsbook, highlighting other market options available to him in California.

 

[CR7]

It is indeed significant news that a California court upheld Fliff's claim and ruled in favor of the arbitration clause in the sweepstakes sportsbook's terms. This decision means that Fliff and other gaming companies have secured a win in terms of their legal right to enforce arbitration in resolving disputes.

The court's decision to grant the case's move to arbitration is in line with Fliff's argument that Pennsylvania law should apply. This shows that the court recognized the importance of adhering to the jurisdiction specified in the terms and conditions of the contract.

Regarding Nessim's claim that Fliff was an illegal sportsbook, the court highlighted that there are other market options available to him in California. This implies that the court considered the availability of legal and regulated gambling options in California as a factor in the case.

Overall, this California court's ruling in favor of Fliff and the enforcement of the arbitration clause represents a significant development that reinforces the importance of contractual terms and jurisdictional considerations in the gaming industry.