Wilson v. HUUUGE, Inc.

1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA SEAN WILSON, individually and on CASE NO. 18-cv-05276-RBL behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 10 Plaintiff, FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING v. ORDER HUUUGE, INC., a Delaware DKT. # 69 12 corporation, 13 Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Sean Wilson’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Dkt. # 69. The Motion arises out of a new pop-up message that Defendant Huuuge, Inc. has inserted into its casino game app. This new pop-up informs users of the app’s terms of use, which include an arbitration clause. It also utilizes language very similar to a pop-up that the Court approved in a similar case because it provided instructions on opting-out of the app’s terms of use, explained the rights at stake in the ongoing lawsuit, and provided contact information for the plaintiff’s attorney. See Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc., 423 F. Supp. 3d 1055, 1065 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (describing requirements); Kater v. Chuchill Downs, No. 15-cv-612, Dkt. 145 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 19, 2019) (approving defendant’s revised pop-up). Huuuge’s pop-up looks like this: 2 , TENE CELUI CUS USE aaa] \ 3 SN ere 1a =e MA □□□ Oe aS Ce SMe MMC AUTAY ASI CMTE Ae (eee ELLIO) Ny SVOT IA EeLN In aa CUM ALO OM Oe] CCM Soe [OLODUM □□ ASIUINOY] COUNT LCs) NCettst eel | eMmO] (0G ele18 11)-O0 6) ce (OL CNT OU LACH 4 Lofed AC MCOCOTALCUUTVT A ah Cobre Looked AcMa Camm C0)” Bred CoM COM DM AN SCO) CePy nO). CeA'Col Amn (OTUOU TDs) PL) OCOTLUKO IN CTeMR CLOVES Cult Uech prsit4 SOME DIME CU LEO DUR) ML LAT CTUC MOL ema HUY =Cet UU Lieel ey ESMCe) ime ToL C= Ceo AARC Shepie MUTE) 9 eT peldeted=to(0 Cc SMe (2111 0 UU Le GIRS Steps) IE) CAL ccem Da Neko a eee) GU cae SLO CD CIMT ELEM Mista [1] 5 Rr eee one 6 □□□ Nast ME MonlIN (CUO) eof oa UA an Ceited Cir BT Tire] rel AU Len □□□ Cert aes] OOTOIR ULLUMY fee| LTA] Me] Me □□□ UMraR CML □□ ESTO ohio MMT CH SM EYE I-AA) At are Te nT Am eM node) fom OL □□□ OAC} Oia | fo 10) Td LOTT FST unt sland con Cclend(i ame Cea em □□□ slo □□ ersten Aim COMA caee) can eM aONiC=y pra stc1e heb) allem e)eep ama TUT) =tean Oe Est TET tee eye (oes 7 PENSE nu a CMO TRL dena □□ ROIS TU □□ □□□ Sn (ree Coster Warm OTT □□ Cero Be) a UAT UL gal) CALL LOO) ee CC Eh TCT) OO Ld 8 Cooley Lara er Woe] Oa Ties ele) 1a UMAR MOSTERE NMC) MCeTTL ace) An □□□ UCL LUMO] Mellie UeTL ROVE CO Ors ITAL (Ce ere] Com MAM EL UeST Lem AU Lars ies EH elm CA ea Le Atel TAF Aa te] oto) Vito) aCoCe gL cay Aa cede cKecoae uae) Bef COL TMCS LEMON AT OVE CN 10 Pe eS ee 11 eee ences Nonetheless, Wilson challenges Huuuge’s pop-up primarily on the basis that, with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, users should not be forced to make “complex and crucial decision[s] as to their legal rights” and “venture into unsafe public spaces in order to ‘opt-out.’”

Motion, Dkt. # 69, at 2. Wilson also objects to the inclusion of new choice of law and statute of limitations provisions in the terms of use and protests that the pop-up directs users to the 1-800 number that was established for separate lawsuits challenging the Big Fish Casino app. The Court is unpersuaded that these issues justify a TRO. While the current public health situation has affected life in innumerable ways, people can still obtain postage and envelopes online (either through printing or delivery) and leave mail in an outgoing postal box. Indeed, unlike grocery shopping and other necessities, sending mail is one of the few activities that can be accommodated fairly easily during quarantine. And it is certainly not the case that the pandemic has somehow fogged people’s minds to the point that they cannot make rational decisions; if users have time to play games on their phones, they likely have time to weigh their legal rights.

3 As for Wilson’s other concerns, they do not add up to much. To the extent that the California choice of law and statute of limitations provisions limit users’ rights, Huuuge correctly points out that the pop-up already informs users that clicking “I agree” will preclude them from participating in this lawsuit. Thus, while the pop-up does not explain how each provision from the terms could affect the claims in this case, it does state the much more easily- understood bottom line. Any other impact that the terms’ provisions may have on hypothetical future claims has nothing to do with Wilson’s lawsuit and is thus beside the point. As for the phone number, Huuuge should consult with Wilson’s counsel and devise an appropriate alternate number, but this hardly warrants judicial intervention.

12 In short, Huuuge’s new pop-up complies with the requirements that the Court articulated in Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc. and Wilson’s new arguments do not persuade the Court that the pop-up is likely invalid. The Motion is DENIED.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated this 20th day of April, 2020.

17 A Ronald B. Leighton 19 United States District Judge