Hunton Retail Law Resource

On April 9, 2025, a Florida appellate court addressed whether a football game spectator had to arbitrate her claims under the terms of a ticket she did not buy or possess.  Applying traditional agency principles, the court held she did.

In Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. Engwiller, __ So. 3d __, 2025 WL 1064381, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal addressed whether a football game spectator who gained access to the stadium when her mother displayed the electronic tickets for both of them was required to arbitrate her negligence claims against stadium management and the football team pursuant to the ticket terms. Following the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (applying Maryland law) and Fifth Circuit (applying Texas law), the court applied traditional agency principles in reasoning that the spectator, a non-signatory, was bound to arbitrate.

Plaintiff filed a negligence action against the Miami Dolphins and stadium management for injuries she sustained at the Hard Rock Stadium in late 2022 after a fight broke out at a Miami Dolphins-Pittsburgh Steelers game. She gained access to the stadium with electronic tickets her mother accepted from her employer. To accept the tickets, her mother logged into the Dolphins Account Manager website, which displayed the following notice between the user log-in fields and the “Sign In” button: “By continuing past this page, you agree to the Terms of Use . . . .” The phrase “Terms of Use” was hyperlinked, bold, and in a contrasting aqua ink. That hyperlink directed users to the “2022-2023 Hard Rock Stadium Ticketback Terms,” which explained that the ticket was a revocable license to enter the stadium for the event, subject to the described terms that included a mandatory arbitration provision. 

Pursuant to this provision, the team and the stadium owner moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed in favor of arbitration. It first considered whether the mother had accepted the arbitration agreement and (1) determined that the phrase “Terms of Use” was conspicuous enough to put a reasonable user on notice and that Plaintiff’s mother assented to these terms when she claimed the tickets; and (2) rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the terms were merely “exemplars” and that a party seeking enforcement of an electronic contract must produce a screenshot from the same device used by the other contracting party.

Turning to the Plaintiff/daughter, the court determined that, although she never accessed or possessed the tickets, once Plaintiff allowed her mother to present the ticket on her behalf to enter the stadium, her mother acted as her agent. The court explained that all entrants to the stadium were required to agree to the conditions of the single-use license set forth in the terms and that finding otherwise would allow a guest to accept the benefits of that license without the related conditions.

Event attendees often purchase tickets on behalf of family and friends. In so doing, they accept the applicable terms. Traditional agency principles bind non-signatories to those terms, including arbitration provisions, when they use that ticket regardless of whether they access or possess it so long as the purchaser received notice of the terms.