Plaintiffs in ‘Moneymaker’ Inspired Class Action PayPal Lawsuit Appeal 2022 Ruling
- The initial lawsuit against PayPal was dismissed in June 2022
- The plaintiffs are pushing on with their case and are now seeking to have the ruling reversed
- The appeal argues that PayPal’s terms of service are unfair and onerous
In June 2022, a Chris Moneymaker-inspired class action lawsuit against PayPal was dismissed, with the judge sending the case for arbitration, honoring the defendant’s request.
Now, the fight continues.
Legal Battle Continues
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit have appealed the June 2022 ruling in a bid to hold PayPal accountable for its alleged illegal business practices. The legal battle continues with California attorneys Eric Bensamochan and Edwin Schreiber seeking to have the previous court decision reversed via a fresh filing.
It all started when ACR‘s Moneymaker in May last year revealed on Twitter that PayPal illegally seized $12,000 from his personal account. The funds were entry fees for a daily fantasy sports league managed by Moneymaker. The 2003 World Series of Poker (WSOP) Main Event champion said he attempted to reach out to PayPal to discuss the issue but the California-based online wallet never responded.
When Moneymaker announced his intention to sue PayPal over the practice and encouraged others who may have encountered the same issue to join him in his fight, PayPal suddenly reversed course and decided to return the money. But it was too late as a class action lawsuit was already in the works.
While Moneymaker was no longer involved in the legal fight as the funds were already returned to him, the other plaintiffs, which include Poker League of Nations (PLON) founder Lena Evans, pushed on. PayPal seized $26,984 from Evan’s account on the same violation as Moneymaker.
The initial lawsuit sought to have PayPal’s transactions and practices declared as “illegal, highly questionable, and akin to theft”. Judge Beth Freeman dismissed the suit and sent it for arbitration.
PayPal’s Terms of Service “One-Sided”
In their appeal, the plaintiffs cited a previous case law dealing with the same issue. They argue that PayPal’s terms of service, such as freezing for 180 days any account suspected of violating its rules, are one-sided. PayPal allegedly freezes accounts without proper explanation and the affected users were not allowed to prove that they did not violate anything.
It might take several months before we can see any progress on this appeal. If the judgment comes out in favor of the plaintiffs, an immediate resolution is not guaranteed.