Jurisdictional Disputes

Henderson, a resident of Puerto Rico, entered a mainland sweepstakes and was informed upon winning that the prize was void in his jurisdiction. Henderson argued that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and therefore not a "where" but a "here." FreshCo's legal team responded that the sweepstakes rules defined "where" as "any jurisdiction in which participation is restricted by local law," which included Puerto Rico under FreshCo's own compliance guidelines.

Henderson countered that participation was not restricted by local law but by FreshCo's own rules, making FreshCo both the prohibitor and the voider — a configuration he described in his filing as "a conflict of interest at minimum and a racket at most." FreshCo's response noted that the phrase "void where prohibited" does not specify the identity of the prohibitor.

Matter settled for an undisclosed amount. Henderson received a gift card. FreshCo updated their sweepstakes language to clarify that "where" includes "territories, possessions, and any other jurisdiction in which our legal department has concerns." Henderson's brief is the clearest articulation of the self-referential prohibition problem we have encountered in private litigation.

A class of 247 plaintiffs from Quebec entered an online promotional contest hosted by a U.S.-based company whose website did not display the "void where prohibited" language in a jurisdiction-specific manner. The plaintiffs argued that the absence of a specific Quebec exclusion implied the offer was valid in Quebec. The company argued that "void where prohibited" was sufficient notice and that the plaintiffs should have known Quebec law prohibited such promotions.

The court dismissed the case on procedural grounds before reaching the merits, noting that the plaintiffs had not established standing to sue in the jurisdiction where the case was filed, which was neither Quebec nor the state of the company's incorporation. The court noted, in a footnote, that establishing standing appeared to require determining which jurisdiction's law applied, which was, itself, a void-where question.

The footnote has been cited seven times in subsequent academic papers. The underlying merits have not been addressed by any court. Quebec remains void. The company updated their website to include a Quebec-specific exclusion banner that appears only to users with Canadian IP addresses.

Thornbury entered a rebate promotion and successfully submitted a valid rebate claim. The rebate company subsequently informed him that the promotion was void in his jurisdiction — a jurisdiction that had passed new consumer protection regulations after the promotion launched but before the rebate was processed. The question before the court was whether the jurisdictional prohibition applied at the time of entry, the time of submission, or the time of payment.

Allied argued that the prohibition applied at the time of payment, as that was when the financial transaction occurred. Thornbury argued that this interpretation meant any promotion could be retroactively voided by waiting for a jurisdiction to pass restricting legislation. Allied's legal team, in deposition, acknowledged that this was "technically accurate but probably not what would happen in practice."

Settled for the full rebate amount plus a $50 inconvenience payment. The legal question of temporal void-where applicability was not resolved. The industry adopted informal guidance that prohibition applies at time of entry. The guidance is not binding. Nobody followed up on the temporal question. This is consistent with the field generally.

Following our 2024 trademark registration of the phrase "Void Where Prohibited™," we identified a major beverage company whose promotional materials used the phrase without authorization. We sent a cease-and-desist letter. Their legal team responded that the phrase was in common use and therefore not subject to trademark protection. We responded that our trademark registration suggested otherwise. They responded that the trademark was likely invalid.

We have not yet determined whether our trademark is valid. The trademark office has not communicated concerns. The beverage company has not communicated further. The phrase continues to appear on their promotional materials. We continue to note it.

Status: Ongoing. We note that "ongoing" is not the same as "active." Nothing has occurred for eleven months. The matter remains open in our files. We have a very large file-retention capacity.