Panel erred in Mike Lindell's $5M election challenge ruling, court says
Eighth Circuit tosses MyPillow founder's ‘Prove Mike Wrong’ arbitration award in South Dakota voting data case
Another chapter in the fallout from the 2020 presidential election unfolded this week.
A federal appeals court has reversed a $5 million arbitration award to software expert Robert Zeidman, ruling the panel overseeing MyPillow founder Michael Lindell’s 2021 “Prove Mike Wrong Challenge” exceeded its authority by amending clear contest rules, instead of applying them as written.
Minnesota entrepreneur Mike Lindell, a prominent 2020 election skeptic, staged a “Cyber Symposium” in Sioux Falls in August 2021. Lindell promised to reveal technical data he said proved China interfered in the presidential election. He offered a $5 million reward to anyone who could prove his data “unequivocally does NOT reflect information related to the November 2020 election.”
Zeidman, a veteran software developer, entered the contest after his credentials were vetted by Lindell’s team.
Zeidman examined 11 files given to him as proof materials and submitted a report asserting the data “unequivocally does not contain packet data of any kind and does not contain any information related to the November 2020 election.”
Contest judges selected by Lindell denied his claim, prompting Zeidman to opt for arbitration.
The core question before the American Arbitration Association panel was whether the contest required Lindell to provide data specifically in the form of packet captures (“PCAP”) reflecting election activity, or merely data “related to” the 2020 election as broadly described in the official contest rules.
The panel concluded that, based on Lindell’s public statements and experts’ testimony, the contest rules required packet capture data. Finding the files given to Zeidman were not in that format, the panel awarded him the $5 million prize and ruled against Lindell’s company, Lindell Management LLC.
The District Court confirmed the arbitration award, noting that — even if the panel erred by using extrinsic evidence to interpret the rules — the panel was “arguably interpreting and applying the contract” and thus was owed deference under the Federal Arbitration Act.
But on appeal, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the arbitration panel went too far.
“From the four corners of the Challenge contract as defined by the Official Rules, there is no way to read ‘information related to the November 2020 election’ as meaning only information that is ‘PCAP data,’” Judge James B. Loken wrote.
The panel’s approach, the court said, “imposed a new obligation upon LMC, effectively amending the contract.”
That, the court found, exceeded the powers given to the arbiters by both federal law and Minnesota contract principles.
The ruling sends Zeidman’s claim back to district court, with instructions to grant Lindell Management’s motion to vacate the arbitration award or proceed in line with the appellate opinion.
 | A guest post by
|