Miami Dolphins Win Key Legal Battle Over Stadium Liability
A Game-Changer for Fan Lawsuits and Online Agreements
A recent court decision has thrown a curveball into the world of fan lawsuits, potentially changing how individuals can seek redress for injuries at sporting events. Last week, a significant ruling by the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court decision that denied the Miami Dolphins’ attempt to force arbitration in a fan injury case. The court held that a fan who never personally clicked "I agree" on any terms was still bound to arbitrate—because her mother accepted the electronic tickets online, which contained the Terms of Use. Welcome to the age of agency-by-smartphone – the legal principle that actions taken online can create binding agreements for others.
The Case in Brief
Cameron Engwiller sustained injuries in a brawl at Hard Rock Stadium during a 2022 Dolphins-Steelers game. She subsequently sued the Miami Dolphins and South Florida Stadium, LLC for negligent security. The team responded not by addressing the substance of the lawsuit, but by seeking to compel arbitration based on a clause embedded in the ticket “Terms of Use.” Arbitration is a private dispute resolution process outside of traditional courts. The trial judge denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed this decision.
Key Legal Play: The Online Agreement
The central issue in this case was the enforceability of the online agreement. Engwiller never directly viewed the Terms. Her mother accessed the tickets using the Dolphins' online ticketing system—an interface that displayed a brightly-colored hyperlink to the Terms of Use and an arbitration clause above the “Sign In” button. Critically, there was no explicit checkbox or click-to-agree mechanism.
That seemingly minor design detail became the linchpin in this case. The court found the brightly-colored hyperlink, prominently placed, was sufficiently conspicuous to put a reasonably prudent user on notice of the Terms. Consequently, by logging in and accessing the tickets, the mother demonstrated her assent to the arbitration clause. The court further reasoned that Engwiller, by using the ticket to gain entry to the stadium, ratified her mother’s actions and was therefore also bound by the arbitration agreement.
Why This Ruling Matters
This ruling isn’t just a win for the Dolphins—it’s a significant development in how courts view electronic contracts and third-party ticket transfers. The court emphasized three key takeaways:
The Power of Conspicuous Design: A bold hyperlink in a different color, strategically placed where users are likely to see it, can be enough to legally bind users—even if they don’t actively read the linked terms. Courts consider factors like placement, size, and contrast when determining conspicuousness.
Implied Agreement Through Conduct: The principle of agency by conduct remains a vital aspect of contract law in the digital age. If someone else presents a ticket for you, and you use that ticket to gain entry to an event, you may be deemed to have implicitly agreed to the terms and conditions associated with that ticket.
Arbitration's Continued Ascendancy: Florida courts maintain a strong public policy favoring arbitration as a means of dispute resolution. This decision reinforces the enforceability of mandatory arbitration clauses, even when the agreement to those clauses is indirect.
Implications for Sports Teams and Event Operators
This decision strengthens the enforceability of digital ticketing terms and offers a clear roadmap for venue operators seeking to protect themselves from liability:
Design Smart Ticketing Interfaces: Ensure hyperlinks to legal terms are prominent and visually distinct within the ticketing interface, placing them in close proximity to actions like login or ticket access.
Document Everything: Maintain thorough records, including screenshots of the ticketing process, login logs, and clear versions of the Terms of Use in effect at the time of ticket purchase.
Rely on Agency Principles: Understand that courts may view the use of accounts or tickets by third parties as evidence of consent to the associated terms.
What About the Fans?
For fans and plaintiffs' attorneys, this ruling serves as a critical cautionary tale. Individuals can find themselves bound by arbitration agreements even if they never directly saw or clicked on the contract. If a client entered a venue using a ticket accessed through someone else’s online account, that digital agreement could be sufficient to keep their injury claim out of the traditional courtroom.
The Bigger Picture
This decision aligns with a growing trend in legal rulings across various sectors—from cruise lines and concerts to e-commerce—emphasizing that those who seek the benefits of a transaction often bear the responsibility of the associated terms and conditions. Courts are increasingly reluctant to allow plaintiffs to selectively avoid dispute resolution clauses clearly linked to the services or goods they utilize.
Final Score: Dolphins Prevail in Arbitration Battle
Miami Dolphins: 1
Potential Courtroom Litigation for Injured Fans: 0
Future of Web-Based Contracts: Trending Up
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and ordered the case to proceed in arbitration. While the Dolphins may still face liability for Engwiller’s injuries, that determination will now occur outside of the traditional court system.
Bottom Line: Navigating the Nuances of Digital Consent
Digital consent is an increasingly significant aspect of modern transactions. For legal professionals handling injury cases at events, understanding the intricacies of online agreements and the principles of implied consent through digital platforms is no longer optional but essential. Knowing the difference between a conspicuous hyperlink and a legal hurdle is now paramount.