By James Moss
Because you really can’t do much else.
If you have been paying much attention to the news from Oregon over the last few months, you know the recreation industry in Oregon is having an extremely difficult time. Oregon only has one ski area insurance company in the state, premiums are rising by 20 percent and 30 percent for all recreation activities and landowners, and there are no defenses available to a negligence claim.
Is essence, the Oregon sports and recreation industry is sinking because of lawsuits. So badly, the Titanic is looking good.
In 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court handed down a decision in Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., dba Mt. Bachelor Ski and Summer Resort, 340 P.3d 27, 2014 Ore. LEXIS 994. That decision eliminated the use of releases in the state of Oregon.
The decision was controversial at the time because the facts did not seem to justify the damages of $21.5 million. See Oregon Supreme Court finds release signed at ski area is void as a violation of public policy. Less than a week later, the lawsuits are being filed in droves. On top of that, the Oregon Supreme Court used every possible legal way to say that releases (waivers) were no longer valid in the state and eliminated inherent risks also.
The court first found under Oregon law that releases were illegal because they were contrary to public policy. “An agreement is illegal if it is contrary to law, morality, or public policy.” The court then found releases were also unenforceable because they were unconscionable. “This court has not distinguished between contracts that are illegal because they violate public policy and contracts that are unenforceable because they are unconscionable.”
The Oregon Supreme Court then held that releases were void because they were sufficiently unfair and oppressive to be unenforceable. “Frequently, however, the argument that a contract term is sufficiently unfair or oppressive as to be unenforceable is grounded in one or more factors that are not expressly codified; in such circumstances, the common law has a significant role to play.” Next, the court found releases were unenforceable because of the disparity of bargaining power. This theory is supported in many states when the consumer needs a necessity, such as a utility. However, recreational services have never been a necessity in any state.
The court did not stop with just four reasons; it piled on, holding that the release was void because it would be unfair to the plaintiff in this case. It then added a premises liability theory that the duty owed by a possessor of land exceeded the defense provided by a release. (Reasons 5 and 6, I believe if you are keeping count.)
The court then found the ski area violated the Oregon Ski Area Statutes because the jump the plaintiff went over caused his injuries. It did not matter that the plaintiff landed more than 100’ past the landing area of the jump and had started his run much higher than the run-in designed for that jump.
The court then found that a ski area was not a recreational area, but a public accommodation, meaning the ski area had a higher duty to the plaintiff and thus a ski area had a public interest, which was a much higher responsibility. Next, the court found the inherent risks of skiing were not a defense if the ski area’s own negligence was so great. Contrary to the Oregon Ski Safety Act specifically defines the inherent risks of skiing in ORS § 30.970(1).
Finally, the court found that this decision applied to all releases in the state of Oregon, not just to this ski area in this case, or to ski areas in the state, or to recreational activities. Releases were now void in Oregon for every use, for everyone. The decision started as a ripple and by the end of the decision was a tsunami.
The Oregon Supreme Court did not stop there. The court then limited all protections for being outdoors in Oregon. In Johnson v. Gibson, 358 Ore. 624; 369 P.3d 1151; 2016 Ore. LEXIS 129, the court found the Oregon Recreational Use statute ORS § 30.480 only applied to the landowner, not volunteers working on the land. See “Oregon Supreme Court decision says protection afforded by the OR Recreational Use Statute only applies to landowner, not volunteers or others on the land.” Trail building, trail clean-up, and bird watching tours disappeared like they had been beamed up by Scotty to the Enterprise.
Once the floodgate was lowered, the lawsuits came rolling in, and so did the judgments.
Mt. Hood Skibowl was hit with an $11.4 million judgment for a mountain bike injury that occurred on its runs one summer. Mountain biking is no longer allowed at Mt. Hood Skibowl and many other ski areas in the state. The basis for the negligence claim was that a sign was positioned incorrectly.
In 2024, Safehold Special Risk, one of the largest insurers in the ski industry and one of the two remaining insurance companies operating in Oregon, called it quits. Ski areas only have one insurance company to deal with, after rates have increased 20 percent or more over the past ten years.
The recreation industry has attempted to fight back; however, every legislative attempt has failed. First, the ski industry attempted to get releases enforceable again, but did not include any other recreational businesses. They lost that battle quickly and gave the trial lawyers the knowledge and time needed to fight additional attempts in the following years. A more united recreation group has been attempting to get the legislature to change the law. However, the trial lawyers in Oregon learned how to fight and gathered resources. The trial lawyers are now one of the largest lobbying groups, financially, in the state. It is easy to throw money at the legislature when winning is not hard at all.
Add to that the hard insurance market and the withdrawal of many insurance companies from the property market nationwide, and recreation providers are calling it quits. If they can find insurance, they can’t afford it. Any use of Federal land for their activities must provide an insurance policy that protects the user and the landowner before a permit or concession agreement will be issued. State parks have closed all activities because the money generated by small recreation businesses is nowhere near what the cost to the government entity may be. And private landowners, even with one bill to protect them, have posted no trespassing signs. Even though Oregon S.B. 179 closed several loopholes in the prior bill, the Oregon Supreme Court shredded it, is not worth the risk. When the Oregon Supreme Court decided Bagley, it went far outside the facts and legal issues in the case to deny the ski area any protection. There is nothing that won’t protect the Oregon Supreme Court from doing the same for private and public landowners. It is easier and cheaper to post a No Trespassing sign than to unlock a gate.
The Oregon public and health insurers were enjoying the situation initially. However, the loss of so many recreational opportunities and the closing of land for recreation, both by private and public landowners, is starting to create concern among the general public. For a state that has prided itself on its recreational activities, sitting on a lawn chair is about as extreme as you can get.
The only foreseeable future is further closure of recreation areas and recreation businesses. One more large judgment against a ski area for skiing, mountain biking, or any other activity at the ski area could result in the closure of all ski areas in the state. With one insurance company for the ski industry in Oregon, there is no competition, so rates will continue to increase as the injuries and lawsuits pile up. A large judgment, and that insurance company will leave the state. Something must give, and either the Ski areas won’t be able to afford the insurance premiums or the remaining insurance company will pull out of the state.
Although the discussion looks at a ski resort losing insurance, skiing is not the only recreational activity affected. Most ski resorts of learned that the summer season is a good way to add to the bottom line and have offered mountain biking, hiking, gondola, and chair lift rides as well as dozens of other recreational activities. When the ski area loses insurance, all of those activities are also shuttered.
Case Citation
Landowner Immunity on Oregon Trails Now Permanent
Lawsuits and outdoor recreation: Oregon Legislature to consider 2 legal protection bills
New Law Keeps Oregon’s Outdoors Open to All
Oregon Outdoor Recreation Economic Impact Study
Oregon Recreation Industry On Edge As Major Insurer Pulls Out
Oregon’s Recreation Crisis: The Update No One Wanted
The Outdoor Recreation Economy by State
The Recreation Industry and Trial Lawyers Battle Over Liability Waivers
The Recreational Immunity Emergency in Oregon
Oregon Recreational Use Statute used by US Forest Service to stop claim by injured snowmobiler
Electronic Arts to Go Private in Historic $55 Billion Deal
By Jeffrey Levine, JD, PhD – Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Sport Business Esport Business Program Lead, Drexel University
Electronic Arts (EA), the publisher behind EA Sports FC, Madden NFL, Apex Legends, and The Sims, announced that it has agreed to be taken private in a deal valued at $55 billion. The acquisition, jointly led by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), Silver Lake, and Affinity Partners, will pay shareholders $210 per share, a roughly 25 percent premium to EA’s stock price before news of the negotiations surfaced (Hirsch & Goldstein, 2025). The company will remain headquartered in Redwood City, California, under the leadership of CEO Andrew Wilson, and the deal is expected to close in the second quarter of 2026.
If completed, this will be the largest leveraged buyout of a publicly traded company in history (Rampling, 2025), signaling a major inflection point for both EA and the broader gaming ecosystem.
The Investor Consortium: Who They Are and How They Entered the Deal
The buyout is anchored by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, the country’s sovereign wealth fund. PIF already held roughly 10 percent of EA’s shares and has spent the past five years executing a sweeping strategy to transform Saudi Arabia into a global gaming and esports hub. Through its subsidiary Savvy Games Group, PIF announced plans for $38 billion in gaming investments and hosted the Esports World Cup with a record-setting $70 million prize pool. Its participation in the EA deal is consistent with the kingdom’s broader sports and entertainment portfolio, which includes investments in LIV Golf, the Professional Fighters League, and major soccer initiatives.
Silver Lake, a U.S.-based private equity firm managing roughly $110 billion in assets, is known for major technology transactions, including Dell’s take-private deal and numerous multibillion-dollar strategic investments. Silver Lake’s long-standing interest in interactive entertainment positioned it as a natural partner in the consortium. Affinity Partners, the private equity fund founded by Jared Kushner, joins the group after cultivating a close investment relationship with PIF. Though Affinity typically focuses on small and mid-sized international investments, its participation gives the consortium additional private capital and structural flexibility in assembling the deal.
The consortium will provide $36 billion in equity, complemented by $20 billion in debt financing from JPMorgan Chase, according to EA’s announcement and public reporting (EA, 2025).
Why EA Is Being Taken Privatemployees-worried-about-layoffs-after-usd55-billion-buyout-that-there-will-be-no-immediate-changes-to-your-jobs-and-i-think-immediate-is-the-key-word-here/
