Football Game Digital Ticket Terms are Binding
In the recent case Miami Dolphins, Ltd. and South Florida Stadium, LLC v. Cameron Engwiller (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s nonfinal order that had denied a motion to compel arbitration in a negligence lawsuit.
Cameron Engwiller attended a Miami Dolphins game in late 2022 at the Hard Rock Stadium, using electronic tickets her mother accepted from her employer on the Dolphins Account Manager website. While logging in to accept the tickets, Engwiller’s mother encountered a clearly displayed hyperlink to the “Terms of Use” which included a mandatory arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved through JAMS arbitration in Miami. Engwiller was subsequently injured at the game during a fight among fans and filed a negligence action against the appellants in circuit court. Appellants moved to compel arbitration and stay litigation pending the outcome, contending that Engwiller’s mother agreed to the mandatory arbitration principle when she accessed the tickets, and that Engwiller was bound by her mother’s agreement under agency principles. The lower court denied the motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the actual binding agreement was not attached and that there was insufficient evidence of an agency relationship between Engwiller and her mother.
However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the terms containing the arbitration clause were binding, even though there was no explicit “click-to-agree” box. The mother’s simple act of accepting the tickets and entering through the site constituted assent to the terms. The court held this hybrid “browsewrap/clickwrap” agreement to be enforceable due to the visibility of the hyperlink and the surrounding context.
Additionally, although the daughter didn’t personally accept the terms or possess the tickets, she allowed her mother to present them for stadium entry, which constituted implied or ratified agency, which ultimately bound her to the same contractual terms. The court here emphasized that when someone accepts the benefits of a ticket, they are also bound by its conditions. Moreover, the court determined that enforcing uniform ticketing terms, including arbitration provisions, promotes efficiency and predictability in large-scale events, and that guests should not be allowed to enjoy ticket benefits while avoiding its binding terms.
The Third District reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration and stay the litigation. This ruling affirms that conspicuously presented digital contract terms, combined with conduct demonstrating assent, are enforceable against non-signatories under agency principles.
