In the United States, a federal appeals court has ruled that Mike Lindell, CEO of “My Pillow” and an ally of former President Donald Trump, does not need to pay $5 million in damages to a software engineer who claimed to have debunked Lindell’s claims of election fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States ruled on Wednesday (July 23) that an arbitration panel overstepped its authority in 2023 by requiring Lindell to pay $5 million to Robert Zeidman, an engineer from Las Vegas. Zeidman participated in Lindell’s “Prove Mike Wrong Challenge,” claiming victory and arguing that he should receive the prize money. The challenge was aimed at challenging opposing views and required participants to debunk Lindell’s assertion that Trump had won the 2020 presidential election.
In 2021, Lindell hosted a “Cyber Symposium” event in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where he launched the challenge, offering a $5 million reward to anyone who could prove that the data in 11 documents he provided had no correlation with the 2020 election.
The judges of the challenge did not announce a winner, but Zeidman claimed victory and sought arbitration based on the competition rules. An arbitration panel later determined that Zeidman should be awarded the $5 million prize.
After the case went to court, a federal district judge ruled last year to uphold the arbitration panel’s decision and ordered Lindell to pay the damages. Lindell subsequently appealed.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday overturned the federal district judge’s ruling, determining that the arbitration panel incorrectly interpreted the rules of the challenge set up and overseen by Lindell. A panel of three appellate judges ruled that the arbitration panel had exceeded the terms of the contract in interpreting the competition rules, rather than strictly adhering to the documents themselves. This improper modification of the contract terms imposed new obligations on Lindell concerning the relevant data.
The appellate court pointed out that the rules were clear, even if they might have favored Lindell.
The judges who rendered the decision stated, “Regardless of fairness, terms of the contract agreed upon by both parties cannot be modified by an arbitration panel or this court.”