In recent months, the Fliff Corporation has found itself embroiled in a class-action lawsuit with a former customer, Bishoy Nessim. Nessim alleges he lost approximately $7,500 wagering on the company’s sweepstake platform and says the format of Fliff Cash violates California law and constitutes an illegal sportsbook.
Fliff maintains it has done nothing wrong and last week filed a motion saying Nessim agreed to arbitration to resolve any disputes when he signed up with the company.
“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.
“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 continued.
Arbitration, in its essence, is a method of dispute resolution that allows parties involved in a conflict to present their case before a neutral third party, known as an arbitrator. Unlike litigation, which takes place in a court of law, arbitration offers a more flexible and confidential approach. One of the key benefits of arbitration is that it allows the parties to avoid the time-consuming and often costly process of going to trial.
Arbitration offers numerous advantages for both Fliff and its customers. Firstly, it provides a faster resolution than traditional litigation. By avoiding the lengthy court process, arbitration allows the parties to reach a decision more quickly, reducing the stress and uncertainty associated with a prolonged legal battle. This speed is particularly beneficial for Fliff, as it enables the company to address customer concerns promptly and maintain a positive brand image.
Secondly, arbitration is a more cost-effective option for all parties involved. Litigation can be an expensive endeavor, with legal fees, court costs, and other related expenses quickly adding up. In contrast, arbitration tends to be less costly, as it requires fewer formalities and can be resolved in a more efficient manner. This cost-saving benefit is advantageous for Fliff, as it allows the company to allocate resources more effectively and invest in other areas of its business.
Lastly, arbitration provides a level of confidentiality that is often not available in court proceedings. This confidentiality ensures that sensitive information and trade secrets remain protected, preserving the integrity of both Fliff’s business operations and its customers’ trust. The ability to keep the details of the dispute private is crucial for maintaining positive relationships with customers and avoiding any potential damage to the company’s reputation.
