Friday, April 03, 2026

delay still defeats Lanham Act presumption of irreparable harm

Skillz Platform Inc. v. Voodoo SAS, 2026 WL 717220, No. 24-CV-4991 (VSB) (JW) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2026)

Skillz sought an injunction against defendants’ allegedly false representations about not using bots, and against defendants’ use of bots, in their gaming applications. Skillz has showed up before litigating against other gaming companies’ bot-related representations. Its games including those where players can compete to win cash prizes in head-to-head, skill-bracketed tournaments that ban bots. Defendants run similar games and advertise themselves as, e.g., “fair” and “skill-based” games that are played against “real players” with “no bots allowed.”

The magistrate recommended against an injunction solely on grounds of delay. The relevant date for measuring delay was not the filing of the initial complaint, but at the time Skillz learned of the alleged harm. Even after filing, it waited seven weeks to move for a preliminary injunction. Without more evidence about when it first learned of the bot use, this “undercuts the sense of urgency that ordinarily accompanies a motion for preliminary relief and suggests that there is, in fact, no irreparable injury.”

In addition, the claims of irreparable injury were too remote and speculative to justify emergency relief. Although the parties do compete, Skillz didn’t show a logical causal connection between the alleged false advertising and (1) its own sales position or (2) the overall cash gaming market.

Skillz showed that its sales and market share decreased since 2021, but not that the alleged false advertising played any role in that beyond unsupported speculation by a self-serving declaration. So too with harm to the overall market. “Courts in this circuit have frequently rejected such speculative arguments in deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction.” [Now do trademark infringement!]

Without evidence of harm to Skillz’ own reputation, as opposed to allegations that distrust was harming the overall market, money damages could redress any injury.


No comments: