The Superior Court of California has struck down four motions filed by High 5 Entertainment, deepening legal challenges faced by the company over its sweepstakes-based gaming platform. This marks a significant setback for High 5, as the court questioned the fairness and legality of its user agreements and arbitration clauses.
Court Finds Arbitration Agreement Unfair and Oppressive
In the ruling, Judge Christine Van Aken rejected High 5’s motions to compel arbitration, quash the service of summons, strike the first amended complaint, and enforce arbitration. At the heart of the matter was the court’s finding that High 5’s arbitration clause was “unconscionable”—a term in U.S. law indicating that the agreement was so unjust it “shocks the conscience.”
“High 5 cites the burden of defending in California but shows at most inconvenience. California has significant interests in enforcing its public policies concerning gambling,” Judge Van Aken wrote in her ruling.
The lawsuit, initiated on December 30, 2024, by plaintiff Thomas Portugal, accuses High 5 of operating illegal gambling through its high5casino.com sweepstakes platform, which remains active in California despite the company exiting six other U.S. states earlier this year.
Portugal argued that the arbitration clause was unenforceable for three reasons: the case falls outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, the arbitration terms are unconscionable, and the underlying contract is illegal. The court sided with the first two claims and, as a result, did not rule on the third.
No Clear Path to Arbitration
High 5’s legal team claimed the company and users had agreed to delegate the decision of arbitrability to an arbitrator, but the court found otherwise. According to court documents, there was “no clear and unmistakable delegation” of such authority, and the language in the terms and conditions contradicted any such claim.
The court further dissected the arbitration clause, identifying both procedural and substantive flaws. Procedurally, the clause was part of a take-it-or-leave-it contract with little transparency for users. Substantively, it contained a one-year time limit for claims, cost-sharing requirements that heavily burdened consumers, and a ban on public injunctive relief—a key element in consumer protection cases.
Wider Implications for Sweepstakes Operators
This case adds to a growing number of legal and regulatory challenges targeting sweepstakes-based gaming platformsacross the United States. The denial of High 5’s motions underscores increasing judicial scrutiny of these business models, especially when consumer protection laws or gambling statutes are potentially being circumvented.
In response to regulatory pressure earlier this year, High 5 withdrew its services from six U.S. states, though California remains a key market for the company. The court’s refusal to dismiss the case signals that California is taking a serious stance on potential violations of its gambling laws.
Though the question of whether High 5’s operations constitute illegal gambling remains unresolved, the court declined to dismiss it at this stage, stating: “The resolution of this question presents evidentiary issues about whether the contract in fact is one for illegal gambling that the court declines to reach on the papers; this is a central dispute in the case and would swallow the merits.”
Source:
“Superior Court of California denies motions from High 5 Entertainment”, X.com “Daniel Wallach”, September 2, 2025
The post California Court Rejects High 5 Entertainment’s Motions in Sweepstakes Dispute first appeared on RealMoneyAction.com.