Wilson v. HUUUGE, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
944 F.3d 1212 (2019)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
HUUUGE, Inc. (Huuuge) (defendant) owned a casino app for smartphones. The app’s terms and conditions (terms) included a binding arbitration provision and prohibited class-action suits. Nothing required users to view, read, or affirmatively assent to the terms before downloading or using the app. However, the terms could be accessed before downloading by navigating to Huuuge’s landing page, clicking a link, scrolling through multiple screens of text, and then copying and pasting the terms’ web address into a web browser. The terms could also be accessed while using the app by navigating to the app’s settings menu and clicking one of the options. Sean Wilson (plaintiff) used Huuuge’s app for over a year. He then filed a class-action suit against Huuuge in district court, alleging that Huuuge violated Washington gambling and consumer-protection laws. Huuuge moved to stay the judicial proceeding and compel arbitration. Huuuge argued that Wilson had constructive notice of the terms, including the arbitration provision, because the terms were readily available to users. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Wilson was not bound by the arbitration provision because Huuuge failed to provide reasonable notice of the terms. Huuuge appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McKeown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.