Chancery Determines That Arbitration Filings Are Not Confidential Under Rule 5.1

In the recent decision of Product Madness, Inc. v. Brooke Kingston, the Delaware Court of Chancery addressed whether portions of Product Madness, Inc.'s complaint and exhibits, related to a confirmed arbitration award, should remain confidential under Court of Chancery Rule 5.1. The Court concluded they should not.

Factual Background:

Product Madness is a corporation that operates digital entertainment products, including mobile applications and web-based games. Kingston was a user of Product Madness's applications, bound by its Terms of Service (TOS), which included a mandatory arbitration provision requiring confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings. Arbitration was initiated by Kingston against Product Madness, which resulted in Product Madness prevailing. The arbitration award, TOS, and Kingston's arbitration demand were included as exhibits in the complaint filed by Product Madness before the Court of Chancery.Product Madness filed public versions of