Latest news with #Arbitration
Forbes
28-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Valve Corporation Gets Steamed By Own Subscriber Agreement And Is Dismissed On UPEPA Special Motion In Washington Case
Anti-SLAPP Laws Protect Free Speech. Steam is an online platform that allows the developers of video games to sell their games to users. Stream is owned by Valve Corporation. To participate in the Stream platform, the users must first agree to something called the "Stream Subscriber Agreement" also known as the "SSA". Among other things, the SSA provides that if a dispute arises between Valve and a user, the user may not file a lawsuit or participate in a class action, but instead must go to individual binding arbitration. Enter Bucher Law PLLC and AFN Law PLLC, which are law firms that apparently rounded up a bunch of the users to make individual claims against Valve for Valve's alleged anticompetitive practices. Following the terms of the SSA, these law firms would send a letter on behalf of each of their user clients to Valve make a claim for damages from the alleged anticompetitive practices and also proposing settlement terms. At first, Valve complained that the user complaints filed by the law firm were not particularized to each user, lacked necessary information for each user, and were not sent in good faith. The law firms then responded to Valve with individualized emails for each of their clients. When Valve did not settle within 30 days after receiving these complaints, then invoking the SSA the law firms initiated arbitration proceedings for each of their user clients. Not happy with all these claims and arbitration proceedings, Valve decided to sue the law firms (henceforth referred to as the "Bucher Defendants") in the Washington state court for wrongfully interfering with Valve's relationships with their users and for abuse of process. Faced with Valve's SLAPP lawsuit, the Bucher Defendants then filed a special motion to dismiss Valve's claims under the Washington Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA"). Hearing the special motion, the trial court held that Valve had alleged sufficient facts to establish its claims and that a statutory exception applied to allow Valve to proceed with litigation against the Bucher Defendants. The Bucher Defendants then appealed the trial court's decision and this lead to the opinion in Valve Corp. v. Bucher Law PLLC, 2025 WL 1792620 ( June 30, 2025), which is the subject of today's article. The first issue that came up was whether the Bucher Defendants could immediately appeal the trial court's denial of their UPEPA special motion. Valve of course claimed that they could not, citing the normal Washington appellate rule preventing appeals of motions to dismiss. The problem for Valve is that the UPEPA specifically provides for an immediate appeal of right if the party who brought the special motion loses that motion before the trial court, as happened to the Bucher Defendants. So, Valve lost on that issue. Moving on to the merits of the Bucker Defendants' appeal, the appellate court noted that the first prong of a UPEPA analysis was whether the challenged cause of action fell within the scope of the UPEPA's protections. On this issue, the appellate court that there were two categories of protected speech into which the Bucher Defendants' actions could fall. First, the UPEPA protects communications that are made about an issue that is involved in a judicial proceeding, which would include an arbitration proceeding. Since the users represented by the Bucher Defendants were involved in arbitration proceedings against Valve, the communications of the Bucher Defendants to their user clients were clearly within the scope of the UPEPA's protections. Second, the UPEPA also protects a person's exercise of their rights to free speech, association and to petition under either the U.S or Washington state constitutions. Since both the U.S. and Washington constitutions have been interpreted to include a lawyer's representation as a guaranteed freedom of speech, association and to petition, Valve cause of action based on the Bucher Defendants' representation of the Valve users easily fit into this category of protection as well. The scope provision of the UPEPA contains one other requirement: The protected expression must also relate to a "matter of public concern". This means that a purely private statement with a small group, such as somebody insulting somebody during a poker game or somebody sending a nasty email to another, is not within the UPEPA's protections. This was a non-issue in this case, however, since the underlying dispute involved Valve's alleged anticompetitive practices and that would be a matter of public concern. There are exclusions to the scope provisions of the UPEPA, meaning that some forms of expression may fall within the definition of protected expression but still not be protected by the UPEPA. One of these exclusions of for so-called commercial speech, being statements made in the course of some commercial transaction, including the sale of services. Here it was Valve that argued ― and the trial court agreed ― that the statements of the Bucher Defendants to their clients, the Steam users, amounted to the law firms selling their legal services to those users. The fly in the ointment of the commercial speech exclusion was that the notices and statements that the Bucher Defendants made, and which Valve based is case on, were made to Valve as the users' and the Bucher Defendants' adversary regarding an ongoing dispute and not for the purpose of the Bucher Defendants selling their services. Thus, the appellate court observed that, "Instead of centering on the commercial relationship between a law firm and its clients . . . the Bucher Defendants' communications were acts of legal representation." Thus, the commercial speech exclusion was inapplicable, the trial court had erred on that point, and the expressions of the Bucher Defendants were within the scope of the UPEPA's protections. That Valve's cause of action fell with the scope of the UPEPA's protections did not end the matter, however. The appellate court now examined the next prong of a UPEPA analysis, being whether Valve's complaint had stated viable causes of action even in light of the constitutional protections. For Valve, the problem here was something known as the litigation privilege, which gives special protections to litigants and their attorneys alike for communications and actions taken during the course of judicial proceedings and which reasonably relate to those judicial proceedings. The idea here is that if a party or their counsel have done something egregious wrong in litigation, the proper remedy is for the court to issue sanctions and fines ― not that the aggrieved party initiate even more litigation about those wrongs. The litigation privilege is thus an absolute privilege. What was Valve complaining about? It was exactly that the Bucher Defendants were engaging in the litigation activity of sending legal notices and then initiating arbitration proceedings exactly as required by Valve's SSA. Whose fault was that? As the appellate court noted: "The conduct Valve complains of—the filing of thousands of individual arbitration requests—is a direct result of its own agreement barring class actions and prohibiting collective or representative arbitration. Such conduct is part of a legal practice and is directly related to representing clients, which is precisely the kind of conduct the litigation privilege is designed to protect." In a footnote, the appellate court further wrote that "[o]n this particular issue, Valve is hoist by its own contractual petard." That footnote further elaborated that Valve had since done away with the individual arbitration requirement of the SSA. This litigation privilege created an absolute bar to Valve's claim, meaning that the trial court committed error in denying the Bucher Defendants' special motion. The appellate court thus reversed that decision and remanded the case back to the trial court to enter an order dismissing Valve's claims. ANALYSIS The UPEPA is a uniform Anti-SLAPP statute adopted by Washington state. The acronym SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. Valve's lawsuit is a classic example of a SLAPP case: It was brought for the strategic purpose of stopping the law firms from participating in litigation on a matter of public interest. The purpose of the UPEPA is to cause an early dismissal of such lawsuits, but that failed here because of a bad ruling of the trial court and the law firms had to appeal that decision. Fortunately, the UPEPA also provides for an immediate appeal of right of the denial of a UPEPA special motion and that resulted in the correct decision by the appellate court. The litigation privilege is very powerful and when combined with the UPEPA it should normally have the effect of quickly knocking out claims meant to harass or deter law firms from taking or maintaining valid actions in judicial proceedings. Indeed, too many SLAPP lawsuits are precisely of the type brought by Valve here which did not seek a resolution on the merits (the allegations of anticompetitive conduct) but instead was simply meant to harass the law firms from not taking any more of these types of cases against Valve. As the appellate court noted, the real problem was that Valve's corporate counsel had totally screwed everything up in the SSA by prohibiting users from participating in class actions. When a lot of the same folks are making the same claims, then it is in a company's best interests ― if the claims are truly all defendable ― to consolidate those claims into a class action and get a single favorable ruling that is binding upon all. Valve's corporate counsel only belated figured that out and corrected their mistake by removing the requirement of individual arbitration from the Valve SSA. None of that was the fault of the law firms but rather it was all Valve's own fault. This sort of proves to some extent the point of some of my previous articles on arbitration, which is that arbitration is not a panacea and arbitration agreements should instead be approached with great caution. Too many attorneys will throw blanket arbitration clauses into agreements without thinking through the ramifications and thus ultimately leading to undesired outcomes. As here.
Saudi Gazette
15-07-2025
- Business
- Saudi Gazette
King Salman chairs Cabinet session, endorses international cooperation and national development initiatives
Saudi Gazette report JEDDAH — The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz chaired the Cabinet session held Tuesday in Jeddah, where the Council reviewed the Kingdom's international engagements, local policy advancements, and approved several key agreements. The Cabinet praised Saudi Arabia's active participation in regional and global meetings, including its commitments at the World Summit on the Information Society in Switzerland, where the Kingdom reaffirmed its support for digital cooperation and sustainable development through modern technologies. Locally, the Council acknowledged achievements under the Financial Sector Development Program and the Human Capability Development Program, noting their role in enhancing financial sustainability and preparing national talent for global competitiveness. It also commended the introduction of artificial intelligence into public education curricula as a strategic step to equip future generations with critical digital skills. The Cabinet celebrated Saudi Arabia's global leadership in international tourism revenue growth during Q1 2025, highlighting the sector's rapid development and growing international environmental matters, the Council welcomed the praise received during the UN high-level meeting on sand and dust storms, particularly regarding the Kingdom's efforts in early warning systems and scientific Cabinet approved an MoU between Saudi Arabia and the UAE in the financial sector, agreements with Somalia on recruitment of domestic and general workers, MoU with Denmark for cooperation in logistics services, and MoU with the Arab Administrative Development Organization on educational assessment and also approved amendments to the Documentation, Arbitration, and Legal Practice laws to align with the Civil Transactions Law. The cabinet approved the Medical Referrals Center Regulation and three-year extension of the Easy Mortgage Program.
Zawya
21-05-2025
- Business
- Zawya
Oman: Shura council approves draft real estate registry law
MUSCAT: The Majlis Ash'shura approved the amendments of the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes and the draft Real Estate Registry Law and referred them to the State Council, at its tenth regular meeting held under the chairmanship of Khalid bin Hilal al Maawali, Chairman of Majlis Ash'shura, on Tuesday. The council discussed the amendments to some provisions of the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes, which was referred by the government. Dr Ahmed bin Ali al Saadi, Chairman of the Legislative and Legal Committee, explained that the amendments aim to enhance the effectiveness of arbitration procedures to support the Sultanate of Oman's efforts to adopt international best practices in the field of dispute resolution. The council also discussed the draft real estate registry law referred by the government. Dr Ahmed bin Ali al Saadi, Chairman of the Legislative and Legal Committee, reviewed the committee's report on the draft law, which includes 40 articles distributed across five chapters. Al Saadi explained that the current real estate registry system no longer keeps pace with the technological boom the Sultanate of Oman has witnessed over the past decades in terms of real estate documentation and registration particularly after the introduction of digital registry systems, electronic title deeds and remote documentation services. The meeting also approved the vision of the Public Services and Utilities Committee regarding the draft air transport agreement between the Sultanate of Oman and the Kyrgyz Republic, referred by the government. The council is holding its eleventh regular meeting today (Wednesday), during which the draft civil society institutions law, referred by the government, will be discussed. The meeting saw the presentation of two urgent statements, the first of which was related to the Ministry of Labour's decision requiring commercial establishments that have completed one year since to employ at least one Omani citizen. The second addressed the failed food security projects and recommended taking decisive decisions to avoid financial waste. In the statement delivered by Mohammed bin Nasser al Mahrouqi, representative of the Wilayat of Sinaw, regarding the Ministry of Labour's decision, he called for exempting micro and small enterprises from implementing the decision. He also called for supporting medium-sized enterprises financially to enable them to employ national job-seekers. Mohammed bin Khamis al Hussaini, a representative of the Wilayat of Samayil, delivered an urgent statement regarding the failed food security projects. He recommended decisive decisions to avoid financial waste, noting that some food security companies have turned into a heavy burden on the state's general budget. 2022 © All right reserved for Oman Establishment for Press, Publication and Advertising (OEPPA) Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Express Tribune
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Five SC officers on deputation repatriated to LHC
Five judicial officers, who were the members of senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah in the Federal Judicial Academy (FJA), have been repatriated to their parent department which is the Lahore High Court. "In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Federal Judicial Academy Act, 1997 (XXVIII of 1997), the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan/Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Judicial Academy is pleased to repatriate the Judicial Officers, currently posted at Federal Judicial Academy, Islamabad on deputation, to their parent department," says the notification issued by Director General FJA Hayat Ali Shah on the instruction of CJP Yahya Afridi. These judicial officers are District and Sessions Judge Jazeela Aslam, Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Amir Munir, Additional District and Sessions Judge Dr Rai Muhammad Khan, Additional District and Sessions Judge Raja Jahanzaib Akhtar and Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Shazia Munawar Makhdoom. The officers shall report to the Lahore High Court on availing usual joining time, as admissible under the rules. Their repatriation is being considered as result of ongoing clash between CJP Afridi and Justice Shah who is also replaced with Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb as in charge of the FJA. The relationship between two top SC judges are not cordial for the last couple of months. Even there are reports that Justice Shah did not attend Iftar dinner given by CJP Afridi at CJP house last week. One source claims that Justice Shah and Justice Athar Minallah were not invited at the dinner. Earlier, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah could not fly to Saudi Arabia for attending two events at the arbitration for want of ex- Pakistan leave. Justice Shah was invited to deliver key notes at two events at the Arbitration week in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia organised by the Al Baraka Forum and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation- Arbitration Center (OIC-AC). During the week, Justice Shah also wanted to perform Umrah before the start of the holy month of Ramazan. The senior puisne judge had made a request to CJP Yahya Afridi for ex-Pakistan leave well in time, which remained unanswered, compelling Justice Mansoor to cancel his trip to Saudi Arabia as his leaves could not be sanctioned. Likewise, four justices, who opposed the elevation of high court judges to the apex court, have been removed from key administrative committees under CJP Yahya Afridi's restructuring plan. CJP Afridi reconstituted several committees, replacing senior justices with junior ones. Those excluded from critical roles included Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi. Lawyers consider that this is clash between beneficiaries and aggrieved judges of 26th constitutional amendment. Had CJP Afridi constituted a full court to hear petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the situation might have been differently, said the legal experts. Two judges, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, who formed the majority in the relevant committee, had ordered the constitution of a full court to hear the petitions in the first week of November. However, instead of listing the case, CJP Afridi convened a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to select judges for the constitutional bench. The constitutional bench has yet to decide petitions against 26th constitutional amendment. Subsequently, a three-judge bench led by Justice Shah had raised question if the regular bench could be barred to adjudicate the matters related to the interpretation of law and Constitution after 26th Constitutional Amendment. However, the case was withdrawn from that regular bench by the committees. A division bench of the apex court led by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah held that the members of both committees violated the judicial order and withdrew the case from regular bench. The bench remarked that committees' members have committed the contempt; therefore, the full court should be constituted to initiate the proceedings. However, the members of constitutional bench were visibly upset and they set aside the regular bench's judicial orders. Recently, the federal government also filed intra court appeals against regular bench orders in contempt matter. Lawyers believe that clash among SC judges intensified after the issuance of contempt notice to Additional Registrar Nazar Abbas. They also say that if the clash among senior SC judges continues, the superior judiciary will be further weakened and the situation will be favourable for the beneficiaries of 26th Constitutional Amendment.
