CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT FINDS ARBITRATION AGREEMENT NOT UNCONSCIONABLE
Plaintiff Abreu filed a putative class action lawsuit against Slide, Inc., the developer of SuperPoke!, an online game in which users adopt, care for, and interact with virtual pets. Google acquired Slide in 2010 and, shortly thereafter, discontinued the game. Plaintiff asserted a number of common law and statutory causes of action against Slide and Google pertaining to the termination of the game, including alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Google and Slide successfully moved to compel arbitration.
The federal district court held that the requirement of a $125 filing fee was not substantively unconscionable, particularly where the arbitration agreement provided that respondent would pay arbitration costs if the arbitrator determined costs to be excessive. It further rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable because the clause failed to provide that plaintiff could recover attorney’s fees if she was successful on her claims. The court held in abeyance the issue of whether the arbitration provision was unconscionable because it permitted only defendants to file an action for injunctive relief in court, finding that the one-way injunctive relief clause was severable so as to permit arbitration of all other issues. Abreu v. Slide, Inc., Case No. 12-00412 (USDC N.D. Cal. July 12, 2012)
This post written by Ben Seessel.
See our disclaimer.
