Yahoo Prevails in Sweepstakes Fulfillment Contract Dispute

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

December 2, 2015

sweepstakesEarlier this year, we reported on developments in a lawsuit filed by prize promotion and risk management company SCA Promotions, Inc. (“SCA”) against Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo”) in connection with a botched billion-dollar March Madness sweepstakes fulfillment contract. On November 18, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted Yahoo’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the suit.

Why was Yahoo dragged into court for its sweepstakes promotion contract?

Yahoo’s Sweepstakes Fulfillment Contract with SCA

SCA’s lawsuit, originally filed in January 2014 in a Dallas County court before being removed to federal court last March, alleged that Yahoo sponsored a March Madness sweepstakes in which any participant who could correctly predict the winner of all 63 games in the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament would win a $1 billion prize.

In December 2013, Yahoo and SCA signed a sweepstakes fulfillment contract, in which SCA and another third-party underwriter would pay out the full $1 billion prize in the event of a winner and, in return, Yahoo would pay $11 million to SCA. Yahoo made an initial scheduled payment of $1.1 million to SCA shortly after signing the contract. However, in January 2014, after Quicken Loans publicly announced that it was teaming up with Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway to sponsor a “Billion Dollar Bracket Challenge” – which, according to Yahoo, was essentially identical to Yahoo’s planned March Madness sweepstakes promotion – Yahoo worked out a deal with Quicken (and without SCA) to be a part of the Billion Dollar Bracket Challenge.

SCA and Yahoo’s sweepstakes fulfillment contract stated: “Should the signed contract be cancelled between January 16, 2014 and February 15, 2014, a cancellation penalty of 50% of the fee will be paid to SCA by Sponsor.” SCA alleged that 50% of “the fee” amounted to $5.5 million (half of the full $11 million amount), which would mean that Yahoo owed SCA an additional $4.4 million.

Conversely, Yahoo argued, and the court agreed, that Yahoo’s liability “is limited to the amount of fees paid by Yahoo, which undisputedly total $1.1 million (of which Yahoo is entitled to a refund of $550,000).” As such, although SCA initiated the breach of contract suit, Yahoo actually stands to recoup half of its initial payment to SCA.

Sponsors: How Clear Are Your Sweepstakes Fulfillment Contracts?

While Yahoo stands to recover over a half-million dollars as a result of last month’s judgment, the contract language in question was less than clear, and a court could have just as easily slapped Yahoo with a $5.5 million cancellation penalty. Sponsors of sweepstakes and promotional contests can minimize the risk of this sort of predicament by including clear, unambiguous language in their sweepstakes fulfillment contracts, especially in key provisions of contracts involving large sums of money.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, pursuing a sweepstakes-related venture, or if you have been served with legal process in connection with your marketing practices, please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.

Attorney Advertising

Related Blog Posts:

Sweepstakes Marketing: Don’t Be the Odd Man Out

Taylor Swift Settles Promotional Sweepstakes Dispute

Consequences for Violating Sweepstakes Registration and Bonding Requirements

David O. Klein

David O. Klein

David Klein is one of the most recognized attorneys in the telemarketing, technology, Internet marketing, sweepstakes and telecommunications fields. Skilled at counseling clients on a broad range of technology-related matters, David Klein has substantial experience in negotiating and drafting complex licensing, marketing and Internet agreements.

Schedule a Call
In The Know

Trending Topics

New York Sweepstakes Law blog- Klein Moynihan Turco

New York Sweepstakes Law: Are You Compliant?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In general, a lottery exists when entrants pay for the chance to win a prize. States alone reserve the right to administer lotteries. Businesses can eliminate one element of what would otherwise be an illegal lottery, in order to transform it into a legal promotional game. If the requirement to

TCPA surveys

An Ad or not an Ad: NY Weighs in on TCPA Surveys

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Another day, another court decision that refines constitutes a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) unsolicited fax advertisement. A Manhattan-based federal court recently issued a decision that removes faxed invitations to participate in a survey from the TCPA definition of advertisement. In drawing this distinction for TCPA surveys, the Court held

NY sports gambling law- Klein Moynihan Turco

Agreement Reached to Enact NY Sports Gambling Law

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This week, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature agreed to a budget deal that will bring mobile sports betting to the State through a unique NY sports gambling law.  Upon the Governor’s signature, NY sports gambling is primed to become the nation’s largest market. However, New York

UK and US Social Media Influencer Laws

UK and US Social Media Influencer Laws

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In September of 2020, the United Kingdom’s (“UK”) Committee of Advertising Practice (“CAP”) reviewed the Instagram accounts of 122 UK-based social media influencers to determine whether content was being properly flagged as advertising in accordance with applicable social media influencer laws. This past March, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”)

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin