![\"Close-up](\"https:\/\/readwrite.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/uanVfNlrRKG30xMSyTR01A-300x168.jpeg\")
<\/div>\nThe sweepstakes casino operator High 5 Entertainment latest action in court hasn\u2019t gone in its favor as a judge denies its motion to compel arbitration.<\/p>\n
This relates to a California-based lawsuit<\/a> where plaintiff Thomas Portugal alleges that High 5\u2019s online gaming platform misled him into spending money.<\/p>\n \u201cNews: Sweepstakes casino operator High 5<\/a> Entertainment (d\/b\/a High 5 Games) loses another key battle in San Francisco Superior Court, as judge denies its motion to compel arbitration, finding that the mandatory arbitration provision is unconscionable,\u201d said legal expert Daniel Wallach who has been keeping up with the case and sharing updates on X.<\/p>\n News: Sweepstakes casino operator High 5 Entertainment (d\/b\/a High 5 Games) loses another key battle in San Francisco Superior Court, as judge denies its motion to compel arbitration, finding that the mandatory arbitration provision is unconscionable. pic.twitter.com\/uCRwpcqIDW<\/a><\/p>\n — Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL) September 2, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In the order denying High 5 Entertainment LLC\u2019s motion to arbitrate, the paper reads: \u201cThe court concludes that there is a high degree of substantive unconscionability. The Terms impose a one-year limitations period for all claims regardless of the underlying substantive law.\u201d<\/p>\n The judge also denied the operator\u2019s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.<\/p>\n It was in mid-August when the judge of the San Francisco Superior Court permitted a lawsuit against the company to move forward. The judge denied its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, with Judge Van Aken having said: \u201cHere, Portugal alleges an injury in paying money for an illegal service, and in being deceived by the service. That is enough for standing.\u201d<\/p>\n Judge Van Aken: "Here, Portugal alleges an injury in paying money for an illegal service, and in being deceived by the service. That is enough for standing." pic.twitter.com\/ggyo4p99sl<\/a><\/p>\n — Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL) August 16, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This is just one case pertaining to sweepstakes-style casinos in the United States, with each potentially setting a new precedent for the industry. It\u2019s also not the first time High 5 Entertainment has been involved in a legal case as it has previously settled cases in Washington and Connecticut.<\/p>\n Earlier in the year, High 5 Games agreed to pay $1.5 million, including $643,000 to affected customers and $800,000 in DCP costs, in the settlement in Connecticut<\/a>. It also had its license revoked, but this was later reinstated.<\/p>\n Featured Image: AI-generated via Ideogram<\/i><\/b><\/i><\/b><\/p>\n The post Sweepstakes casino operator High 5 Entertainment loses another key legal battle in San Francisco<\/a> appeared first on ReadWrite<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
Sweepstakes casino legal case could set precedent for industry<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n