Ninth Circuit Finds Arbitration Agreement with Unconscionable Provisions Unenforceable
Case: Pandolfi v. Aviagames, Inc., No. 24-5817 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2025)
Players of Aviagames’ mobile apps sued over alleged misconduct. Aviagames sought to compel arbitration under its Terms of Service, which included a delegation clause (sending enforceability issues to the arbitrator), a batching provision (grouping claims), and shortened limitation periods. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement and delegation clause unconscionable under California law.
The court emphasized:
– The delegation clause was buried in terms and tied to AAA rules that could change unilaterally.
– The batching provision could cause long delays and discourage claims, applying burdens only to consumers.
– The shortened limitations period unfairly restricted claims against Aviagames but not claims by the company.
Because the agreement contained multiple unconscionable provisions, the court refused to sever them, rendering the arbitration agreement unenforceable
