ESPN, Litigant Disagree About Arbitration of VPPA Complaint
ESPN and a streaming customer suing it for alleged Video Privacy Protection Act violations (see 2210260008) clashed over ESPN efforts to have the suit handled in arbitration. Plaintiff Nate Swartz said Tuesday in opposition to ESPN's motion to compel…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
arbitration (docket 1:22-cv-01523) that by having no recollection of ever agreeing to arbitration when signing up for the service and by not manifesting any intention to be bound by an arbitration agreement, no valid arbitration agreement exists. Swartz, a Pennsylvania resident, told the U.S. District Court for Middle Pennsylvania in Harisburg that he didn't know the subscriber agreement for his 2021 subscription to a bundle of Disney streaming services constituted an agreement for ESPN+ as well, especially since he had been an ESPN video streaming subscriber since 2017. In its Dec. 12 brief in support of its motion to compel,ESPN said Swartz agreed to the Disney+ and ESPN+ subscription agreements, which include a "prominent" binding arbitration and class action waiver protection. ESPN said the plaintiff got "a clear and conspicuous notice" about disclosures when clicking on the subscription agreement.