The District of Columbia Federal Court has dismissed the malicious prosecution case that Zula Casino and Sportzino filed against Kind Law and Ben Travis Law, effectively washing its hands of the case.

This is a long and drawn-out case with major implications for the Sweepstakes casino industry in terms of class action lawsuits and mass arbitration. Kind Law and Ben Travis Law, based in Nevada and California, respectively, recruited the public to a mass arbitration case against the two casinos – alleging illegal gambling activities.

The casinos argue that many of the claimants had never used the platforms, and many of those who signed up didn’t make any significant purchase. Due to the Terms and Conditions, a significant portion had agreed to arbitration claims going through the American Arbitration Association in Washington, DC, while others had already agreed to terms naming Canada’s ADR Chambers in Ontario as the proper channel for arbitration.

Kind Law and Ben Travis Law ignored this and filed all arbitration claims with the AAA in San Diego, California. In response, Zula and Sportzino filed their case alleging malicious prosecution in Washington DC. Both law firms responded with a motion to dismiss, which has been granted by the DC Federal Court. The Federal Court cited jurisdiction issues, as neither law firm is based in Washington State.

The two Sweepstakes casinos have filed a separate case against the law firms in New York, where some players involved in the mass arbitration claim are based. There, Zula and Sportzino are pursuing damages for harm to their business, reputation, and goodwill, along with the significant costs of dealing with what they claim are unauthorized arbitration cases.

There is surely more to come in this case, which will have repercussions for the rest of the Sweepstakes casino industry. We’ll keep you up to date with the latest as it happens.