Zynga, Inc. v. Mills; Huuuge, Inc. v. Gann, [Ms. SC-2024-0454, SC-2024-0455, Apr. 25, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Cook, J.; Shaw, Wise, Bryan, and Mitchell, JJ., concur; Stewart, C.J., and Mendheim and McCool, JJ., concur in the result; Sellers, J., concurs in the result) reverses the Franklin Circuit Court’s order denying motions to compel arbitration filed by defendant companies that own and operate casino themed, online social gaming applications. The plaintiffs brought “these actions pursuant to § 8-1-150(b), Ala. Code 1975, ... that allows ‘[a]ny other person’ to ‘also recover’ money paid and lost due to gambling for the use of the gambler’s wife, children, or next of kin.” Ms. *2.
The Court concludes “[c]laims under § 8-1-150(b) are necessarily derivative because a plaintiff cannot prevail on such a claim without showing that the alleged gambler could also have recovered under subsection (a).” Ms. **16-17. In reversing, the Court reiterates “because an executor or administrator stands in the decedent’s shoes when asserting claims that are derivative of the decedent’s rights, he or she ‘must also abide by the terms of any valid agreement, including an arbitration agreement, entered into by the decedent.’ ... We think this logic applies just as forcefully to the plaintiffs in these cases.” Ms. *14, quoting SouthTrust Bank v. Ford, 835 So. 2d 990, 994 (Ala. 2002).