Posted in Litigation, Privacy

Court Stops Pokémon GO Litigation

US courts are becoming more European.

A plaintiff triggered a lawsuit in Florida against the company behind Pokemon Go (Niantic Inc.) since its T&Cs were “illusory, deceptive, unfair, and/or unconscionable”.

Such privisions gave Niantic the right to unilatrally modify the agreement, to edit or delete one users’s data and similar nice stuff.

Well, the court denied protection to the plaintiff, because:

  • he had not yet suffered a damage (good work on the prevention of it, anyway)
  • the applicable law was the one from California, which could not be unapplied in Florida.


Posted in Arbitration Law, Litigation

Third-party funding of arbitration: the risks

Another trend lots of legals are not aware of  is the funding of litigation (and prisons) from third parties.

Although on the one hand it allows short-resourced parties to afford litigation, this phenomenon also sets some worrisome issues:

  • firstly, what if “investors” decide to fund only litigation where sucess’ rate is higher?
  • on top of percentages on awarded damages, additional expenses are  required (and render the process less profitable): upfront due-diligence, NDA drafting and  the funding agreement.
  • Although in English litigation, a third-party funder of an unsuccessful litigant could be liable to contribute towards the costs of the other side in proportion to the initial contribution, within arbitration boundaries, this is less clear and it may force the funder to resort to security for its costs.
  • conflict(s) of interest may arise
  • Privilege and confidentiality may vary across countries.

Further issues come along and the question is once again: is more regulation the answer?


Posted in Litigation

Litigation funding in New Zealand

Litigation funding his gaining momentum in New Zealand too.

Yet, Courts are quite reluctant on them, also because there is no set of rules to regulate such phenomenon.

The two main cases (to date) are Saunders v. Houghton (where the Court accepted the third-party funding) and Waterhouse v. Contractors Bonding (where such feature didn’t go as smooth as planned).