Dick's Sporting Goods Wins Arbitration in Privacy Lawsuit

Federal court confirms arbitration award in favor of retailer in website tracking case

Published on Feb. 27, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. has secured a complete victory in a federal lawsuit over website tracking allegations. The Central District of California confirmed an arbitration award in favor of Dick's, finding no grounds to overturn the decision under the extremely limited judicial review standards of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Why it matters

This case highlights the continued importance of arbitration clauses in website terms of use as a strategic tool for companies facing privacy litigation. The confirmation of the arbitration award, which included findings on key legal issues like 'in transit' interception and constructive consent, demonstrates the high bar plaintiffs face in undoing merits-based arbitration decisions in federal court.

The details

Plaintiff Sandy Asad sued Dick's Sporting Goods under federal and state privacy laws, alleging the company's website used tracking software to 'intentionally acquire' her electronic communications without consent. Dick's moved to compel arbitration based on its terms of use, and the case was heard by an arbitrator who conducted a full merits hearing. The arbitrator ultimately ruled in favor of Dick's, finding no 'in transit' interception, no transmission of personally identifiable information, and constructive consent based on the website's privacy disclosures. The federal court then confirmed the arbitration award, rejecting the plaintiff's arguments and noting the extremely limited grounds for overturning such decisions under the Federal Arbitration Act.

  • In March 2023, Dick's moved to compel arbitration.
  • In April and May 2025, the arbitrator conducted a full merits hearing.
  • On December 8, 2025, the arbitrator issued a final award in favor of Dick's.
  • On February 19, 2026, the federal court confirmed the arbitration award.

The players

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.

A major American sporting goods retailer.

Sandy Asad

The plaintiff who sued Dick's Sporting Goods over website tracking allegations.

Hon. Gail Andler

The arbitrator who conducted the full merits hearing and issued the final award in favor of Dick's.

Judge Wesley L. Hsu

The federal judge who confirmed the arbitration award in favor of Dick's.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“This order reinforces three strategic realities: First, arbitration clauses in website Terms of Use continue to be meaningful tools in pixel and session-replay cases, particularly where they are well drafted and clearly disclosed. Second, once a defendant wins on the merits in arbitration, the odds of undoing that result in federal court are extraordinarily low. The FAA is not an appellate vehicle. Third, technical defenses still matter. 'In transit' remains a statutory threshold. Proof of actual transmission remains critical. And consent, constructive or otherwise, continues to be a central battlefield in CIPA § 631 claims.”

— Keerti Jaya, Author (natlawreview.com)

What’s next

The judge's confirmation of the arbitration award marks the end of this legal dispute, providing Dick's Sporting Goods with a complete victory and finality in the case.

The takeaway

This case demonstrates the continued value of well-drafted arbitration clauses in website terms of use as an effective defense against privacy litigation. It also highlights the high bar plaintiffs face in overturning merits-based arbitration decisions in federal court, reinforcing the importance of technical defenses and consent arguments in these types of website tracking cases.