- . A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Playtika, LTD and Caesars Interactive Entertainment, LLC (“Defendants”), alleging claims under Washington state law based on the sale of virtual chips in the following social casino-style games: Slotomania, House of Fun, Caesars Casino/Caesars Slots, and Vegas Downtown Slots.
- Playtika — slotomania slots game Hello, I'm currently in a stint in the AWESOME Sloto-club (YAY) and experienced an issue during free spins in Vegas slots cash game. It came during a 5min round of my wild gorilla wild spins.
- This is very, very true, and where “games” mimic gambling, you can bet the money flows. Slotomania Overview Slotomania was first mentioned on PissedConsumer on Mar 06, 2020 and since then this brand received 8 reviews. This will be posted quickly, exposing the company and letting others see what happened to you! Useless by all standards but enough that the aformentioned lawsuit will.
- 142 Playtika reviews. A free inside look at company reviews and salaries posted anonymously by employees.
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
9 10 11
SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
12
Plaintiff,
13
COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION
v.
14 15 16 17
Case No.
PLAYTIKA, LTD an Israeli limited company, PLAYTIKA HOLDING CORP., a Delaware corporation, and CAESARS INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
JURY DEMAND
18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Plaintiff Sean Wilson brings this case, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant Playtika Ltd., Playtika Holding Corp. (collectively “Playtika”), and Caesars Interactive Entertainment, LLC (“CIE”) (collectively “Defendants”) to enjoin their operation of illegal online casino games. Plaintiff alleges as follows upon personal knowledge as to himself and his own acts and experiences, and upon information and belief, including investigation conducted by his attorneys, as to all other matters. NATURE OF THE ACTION
26 27
1.
Playtika owns and operates a leading video game development company in the so-
COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-1-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 19
1
called “casual games” industry—that is, computer games designed to appeal to a mass audience
2
of casual gamers. Playtika owns and operates a host of popular online slot machine games
3
including, inter alia, Caesars Slots, Slotomania, House of Fun, and Vegas Downtown Slots.
4
2.
Playtika provides visitors of its online slot machines a bundle of free “coins” that
5
can be used to wager on its games. After consumers inevitably lose their initial allotment of
6
coins, Playtika attempts to sell them additional coins starting at $2.99 for 20,000 coins. Without
7
coins, consumers cannot play Defendant’s online slot machines.
8 9
3.
Freshly topped off with additional coins, consumers wager to win more coins. The
coins won by consumers playing Playtika’s games of chance are identical to the coins that it
10
sells. Thus, by wagering 20,000 coins that were purchased for $2.99, consumers have the chance
11
to win hundreds of thousands of additional coins that they would otherwise have to purchase.
12
4.
By operating its online slot machines, Playtika has illegally profited from tens of
13
thousands of consumers. Accordingly, Plaintiff Wilson, on behalf of himself and the Classes of
14
similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit to recover their losses, as well as costs and
15
attorneys’ fees.
16
PARTIES
17
5.
Plaintiff Sean Wilson is a natural person and a citizen of the state of Washington.
18
6.
Defendant Playtika Ltd. is a limited company incorporated and existing under the
19
laws of Israel, with its principal place of business at 8 HaChoshlim Street, Herzliya 4672408,
20
Israel. Playtika Ltd. conducts business throughout this District, Washington State, and the United
21
States.
22
7.
Defendant Playtika Holding Corp. is a corporation incorporated and existing
23
under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 2225 Village Walk Drive
24
#240, Henderson, Nevada 89052. Playtika Holding Corp. conducts business throughout this
25
District, Washington State, and the United States.
26 27
8.
Defendant Caesars Interactive Entertainment, LLC is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business at One COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-2-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 3 of 19
1
Caesars Palace Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109. Caesars Interactive conducts business
2
throughout this District, Washington State, and the United States.
3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4
9.
Federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because
5
(a) at least one member of the class is a citizen of a state different from Defendant, (b) the
6
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and (c) none of the
7
exceptions under that subsection apply to this action.
8 9 10
10.
business in this District, and because the wrongful conduct occurred in and emanated from this District.
11 12
The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they conduct
11.
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial
part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.
13 14
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS I.
15
Free-to-Play and the New Era of Online Gambling 12.
The proliferation of internet-connected mobile devices has led to the growth of
16
what are known in the industry as “free-to-play” videogames. The term is a misnomer. It refers
17
to a model by which the initial download of the game is free, but companies reap huge profits by
18
selling thousands of “in-app” items that start at $0.99 (purchases known as “micro-transactions”
19
or “in-app purchases”).
20
13.
The in-app purchase model has become particularly attractive to developers of
21
games of chance (e.g., poker, blackjack, and slot machine mobile videogames, amongst others),
22
because it allows them to generate huge profits. In 2017, free-to-play games of chance generated
23
over $3.8 billion in worldwide revenue, and they are expected to grow by ten percent annually.1
24
Even “large land-based casino operators are looking at this new space” for “a healthy growth
25 26
1
GGRAsia – Social casino games 2017 revenue to rise 7pct plus says report, http://www.ggrasia.com/socialcasino-games-2017-revenue-to-rise-7pct-plus-says-report/ (last visited Apr. 6, 18)
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-3-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 4 of 19
1
potential.”2
2
14.
With games of chance that employ the in-game purchase strategy, developers
3
have begun exploiting the same psychological triggers as casino operators. As one respected
4
videogame publication put it: “If you hand someone a closed box full of promised goodies, many will happily pay you for the crowbar to crack it open. The tremendous power of small random packs of goodies has long been known to the creators of physical collectible card games and companies that made football stickers a decade ago. For some … the allure of a closed box full of goodies is too powerful to resist. Whatever the worth of the randomised [sic] prizes inside, the offer of a free chest and the option to buy a key will make a small fortune out of these personalities. For those that like to gamble, these crates often offer a small chance of an ultra-rare item.”3
5 6 7 8 9
15.
10
“Games may influence ‘feelings of pleasure and reward,’ but this is an addiction to the games themselves; micro-transactions play to a different kind of addiction that has existed long before video games existed, more specifically, an addiction similar to that which you could develop in casinos and betting shops.”4
11 12
16.
13 14 15 16
The comparison to casinos doesn’t end there. Just as with casino operators,
mobile game developers rely on a small portion of their players to provide the majority of their profits. These “whales,” as they’re known in casino parlance, account for just “0.15% of players” but provide “over 50% of mobile game revenue.”5 17.
17 18
Another stated:
Game Informer, another respected videogame magazine, reported on the rise (and
danger) of micro-transactions in mobile games and concluded: “[M]any new mobile and social titles target small, susceptible populations for large percentages of their revenue. If ninety-five people all play a [free-to-play] game without spending money, but five people each pour $100 or more in to obtain virtual currency, the designer can break even. These five individuals are what the industry calls whales, and we tend not to be too concerned with how they’re being used in the equation. While the scale and potential financial ruin is
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
2
Report confirms that social casino games have hit the jackpot with $1.6B in revenue | GamesBeat, https://venturebeat.com/2012/09/11/report-confirms-that-social-casino-games-have-hit-the-jackpot-with-1-6b-inrevenue/ (last visited Apr. 6, 18) 3 PC Gamer, Microtransactions: the good, the bad and the ugly, http://www.pcgamer.com/microtransactions-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ (last visited Apr. 5, 2018). 4 The Badger, Are micro-transactions ruining video games? | The Badger, http://thebadgeronline.com/2014/11/micro-transactions-ruining-video-games/ (last visited Apr. 5, 2018). 5 Id. (emphasis added).
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-4-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 5 of 19
of a different magnitude, a similar profitability model governs casino gambling.”6
1
18.
Academics have also studied the socioeconomic effect games that rely on in-app
2 purchases have on consumers. In one study, the authors compiled several sources analyzing so3 called free-to-play games of chance (called “casino” games below) and stated that: 4
“[Researchers] found that [free-to-play] casino gamers share many similar sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., employment, education, income) with online gamblers. Given these similarities, it is perhaps not surprising that a strong predictor of online gambling is engagement in [free-to-play] casino games. Putting a dark line under these findings, over half (58.3%) of disordered gamblers who were seeking treatment stated that social casino games were their first experiences with gambling.”
5 6 7 8
…
9
“According to [another study], the purchase of virtual credits or virtual items makes the activity of [free-to-play] casino gaming more similar to gambling. Thus, micro-transactions may be a crucial predictor in the migration to online gambling, as these players have now crossed a line by paying to engage in these activities. Although, [sic] only 1–5% of [free-to-play] casino gamers make microtransactions, those who purchase virtual credits spend an average of $78. Despite the limited numbers of social casino gamers purchasing virtual credits, revenues from micro-transactions account for 60 % of all [free-to-play] casino gaming revenue. Thus, a significant amount of revenue is based on players’ desire to purchase virtual credits above and beyond what is provided to the player in seed credits.”7
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
19.
The same authors looked at the link between playing free-to-play games of chance
and gambling in casinos. They stated that “prior research indicated that winning large sums of virtual credits on social casino gaming sites was a key reason for [consumers’] migration to online gambling,” yet the largest predictor that a consumer will transition to online gambling was “micro-transaction engagement.” In fact, “the odds of migration to online gambling were approximately eight times greater among people who made micro-transactions on [free-to-play] casino games compared to [free-to-play] casino gamers who did not make micro-transactions.”8
22 23 24 25 26
6
Game Informer, How Microtransactions Are Bad For Gaming - Features - www.GameInformer.com, http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/09/12/how-microtransactions-are-bad-forgaming.aspx?CommentPosted=true&PageIndex=3 (last visited Apr. 5, 2018) 7 Hyoun S. Kim, Michael J. A. Wohl, et al., Do Social Casino Gamers Migrate to Online Gambling? An Assessment of Migration Rate and Potential Predictors, Journal of gambling studies / co-sponsored by the National Council on Problem Gambling and Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming (Nov. 14, 2014), available at http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10899-014-9511-0.pdf (citations omitted). 8 Id. (emphasis added).
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-5-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 6 of 19
1
20.
The similarity between micro-transaction based games of chance and games of
2
chance found in casinos has caused governments across the world to intervene to limit their
3
availability.9 Unfortunately, such games have eluded regulation in the United States. As a result,
4
and as described below, Defendants’ online slot machine games have thrived and thousands of
5
consumers have spent millions of dollars unwittingly playing Defendants’ unlawful games of
6
chance.
7
II.
8 9
A Brief Introduction to Playtika 21.
In December 2010, Playtika launched an online casino game called Slotomania.
Over the years, Playtika expanded its online casino game offering and developed a host of online
10
slot machine games including, inter alia, House of Fun, Caesars Slots, and Vegas Downtown
11
Slots.
12
22.
Playtika has been through a series of mergers and acquisitions by some the largest
13
social gaming companies and casinos. In 2011, Caesars Interactive Entertainment—one of the
14
largest online, mobile, and social gaming companies with long ties to traditional casino
15
gaming—purchased Playtika. Later in 2016, Giant Interactive Group acquired Playtika and its
16
entire offering of casino games for $4.4 billion.10
17 18
23.
like Facebook and on mobile devices such as Android phones and Apple iPhones.
19 20
Consumers can play Playtika’s online slot machines through numerous websites
24.
Defendants have made large profits through their online gambling games. In 2014
alone, Playtika generated almost $280 million in revenue.11 The revenue Defendants receive
21 9
22 23 24 25 26
In late August 2014, South Korea began regulating “social gambling” games, including games similar to Defendant’s, by “ban[ning] all financial transactions directed” to the games. PokerNews.com, Korea Shuts Down All Facebook Games In Attempt To Regulate Social Gambling | PokerNews, https://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/09/korea-shuts-down-facebook-games-19204.htm (last visited Apr. 5, 2018). Similarly, “the Maltese Lotteries and Gambling Authority (LGA) invited the national Parliament to regulate all digital games with prizes by the end of 2014.” Id. 10 China's Giant leads consortium to buy Playtika for $4.4 billion, Game Beat, https://venturebeat.com/2016/07/30/chinas-giant-leads-consortium-to-buy-playtika-for-4-4-billion/ (last visited Apr. 6, 18). 11 Caesars Acquisition Company, Form 10-K, at 27, 53, http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-26XRVU/108250871x0x816171/7DEB3AB6-
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-6-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 7 of 19
1
from Playtika’s online casino games are the result of operating unlawful games of chance
2
camouflaged as innocuous videogames.
3
III.
4
Defendants’ Online Casino Contains Unlawful Games of Chance 25.
As explained above, Playtika owns and operates a host of online slot machine
5
games. Each game functions in a substantially similar fashion. That is, consumers purchase and
6
wage real money on games of chance.
7
26.
Consumers visiting Playtika’s online casino for the first time are awarded a
8
bundle of coins. For example, Playtika gives away 20,000 “coins” to new Slotomania players.
9
These free sample coins offer a taste of gambling and are designed to encourage players to get
10 11
hooked and buy more coins for real money. 27.
After they begin playing, consumers quickly lose their initial allotment coins.
12
Immediately thereafter, Playtika informs them via a “pop up” screen that they have insufficient
13
coins to place a wager. See e.g., Figures 1 and 2. Once players run out of their allotment of free
14
coins, they cannot continue to play the game without buying more coins for real money.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (Figure 1, showing Defendants’ Slotomania game on Facebook.) 24 25 26
64B5-46D9-80CC-FAE83E09DC48/CACQ-2014_Q4_Form_10-K.PDF (last visited Apr. 5, 2018).
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-7-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 8 of 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Figure 2, showing Defendants’ House of Fun game on iOS.) 28.
Concurrently with that warning, Playtika provides a link to consumers, allowing
11
them to purchase coins with real money at its electronic store. Playtika’s Slotomania online
12
casino, for example, sells coins from $2 for 7,500 coins to $50 for 320,000 coins. See Figure 3.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
(Figure 3, showing Defendants’ Slotomania coin prices) 29.
Similarly, Playtika sells coins from $2 for 131,250 coins to $50 for 4,375,000
coins on its Facebook Caesar’s Casino slot game. See Figure 4.
25 26 27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-8-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 9 of 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(Figure 4, showing Defendants’ Caesars Casino slot game coin prices) 30.
The decision to sell coins by the thousands isn’t an accident. Rather, Playtika
14
attempts to lower the perceived cost of the coins (costing just a fraction of a penny per coin)
15
while simultaneously maximizing the value of the award (awarding millions of coins in
16
jackpots), further inducing consumers to bet on its games.
17
31.
To begin wagering, players select the “BET/LINE” (i.e., bet per played line) that
18
will be used for a spin, as illustrated in Figure 5, which illustrates Playtika’s Caesar’s Slots
19
game. Playtika allows players to multiply their bet by changing the number of “lines” (i.e.,
20
combinations) on which the consumer can win, shown in Figure 5 as the “LINE” button.
21 22 23 24 25
(Figure 5, showing Defendants’ Caesars Slots game.) 32.
The bet amount multiplied by the number of lines comprises the “Total Bet”
26
shown in Figure 5. Thus, in the example shown in Figure 5, the player is attempting to bet 2,000
27
coins, or approximately $0.03, for one spin of the slot machine. COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-9-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 10 of 19
1
33.
Once a consumer spins the slot machine by pressing the “SPIN” button, Playtika
2
does not allow (or call for) any additional user action by the player on any of its slot machine
3
games. Instead, the consumer’s computer or mobile device communicates with and sends
4
information (such as the “Total Bet” amount) to Playtika’s servers. Playtika’s servers then
5
execute the game’s algorithms that determine the spin’s outcome. Notably, none of Defendants’
6
games depend on any amount of skill to determine their outcomes—all outcomes are based
7
entirely on chance.
8
34.
9
Consumers can continue playing with the coins that they won, or they can exit the
game and return at a later time to play because Playtika maintains win and loss records and
10
account balances for each consumer. Indeed, once Playtika’s algorithms determine the outcome
11
of a spin and Playtika displays the outcome to the consumer, it adjusts the consumer’s account
12
balance. Playtika keeps records of each wager, outcome, win, and loss for every player.
13 14
FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF WILSON 35.
Since at least 2012, Plaintiff Wilson has been playing Playtika’s online slot
15
machines. Specifically, Wilson has played “House of Fun” and “Slotomania Slots” on his iOS
16
devices, and “Slotomania” and “Caesars Slots” on Facebook.
17 18 19
36.
After Plaintiff lost the balance of his initial allocation of free coins, he began
purchasing coins from Defendants for use in its online slot machine games. 37.
Thereafter, Plaintiff Wilson continued playing Playtika’s slot machines where he
20
would wager coins for the chance of winning additional coins. Starting in September 2016,
21
Plaintiff Wilson wagered and lost (and Defendants therefore won) over $10 at Defendants’
22
games of chance.
23 24
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 38.
Class Definition: Plaintiff Wilson brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
25
23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of himself and the Class and Subclass (collectively the “Classes”)
26
of similarly situated individuals, defined as follows:
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 10 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 11 of 19
1
Class: All persons in the State of Washington who purchased and lost coins playing Defendants’ slot machine games.
2
CIE Subclass All persons in the State of Washington who purchased and lost coins playing Defendants’ slot machine games before October 22, 2016.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
The following people are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendants, Defendants’ subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or its parents have a controlling interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Classes; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants’ counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. 39.
Numerosity: On information and belief, tens of thousands of consumers fall into
the definition of the Classes. Members of the Classes can be identified through Defendants’ records, discovery, and other third-party sources. 40.
Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact
common to Plaintiff’s and the Classes’ claims, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual members of the Classes. Common questions for the Classes include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: a.
19 20
RCW § 9.46.0237; b.
21 22
c.
Whether Plaintiff and each member of the Class lost money or anything of value by gambling;
d.
25 26
Whether Defendants are the proprietor for whose benefit the online casino games are played;
23 24
Whether Defendants’ online casino games are “gambling” as defined by
Whether Defendants violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW § 19.86.010, et seq.; and
e.
Whether Defendants has been unjustly enriched as a result of its conduct.
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 11 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 12 of 19
1
41.
Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the
2
Classes, in that Plaintiff’s and the members of the Classes sustained damages arising out of
3
Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
4
42.
Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and
5
protect the interests of the Classes and has retained counsel competent and experienced in
6
complex litigation and class actions. Plaintiff’s claims are representative of the claims of the
7
other members of the Classes, as Plaintiff and each member of the Classes lost money playing
8
Defendants’ games of chance. Plaintiff also has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes,
9
and Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to
10
vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the Classes and have the financial resources to do
11
so. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel have any interest adverse to the Classes.
12
43.
Policies Generally Applicable to the Classes: This class action is appropriate for
13
certification because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
14
the Classes as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure
15
compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Classes and making final injunctive
16
relief appropriate with respect to the Classes as a whole. Defendants’ policies that Plaintiff
17
challenges apply and affect members of the Classes uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of these
18
policies hinges on Defendants’ conduct with respect to the Classes as a whole, not on facts or
19
law applicable only to Plaintiff. The factual and legal bases of Defendants’ liability to Plaintiff
20
and to the other members of the Classes are the same.
21
44.
Superiority: This case is also appropriate for certification because class
22
proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
23
this controversy. The harm suffered by the individual members of the Classes is likely to have
24
been relatively small compared to the burden and expense of prosecuting individual actions to
25
redress Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Absent a class action, it would be difficult, if not
26
impossible, for the individual members of the Classes to obtain effective relief from Defendants.
27
Even if members of the Classes themselves could sustain such individual litigation, it would not COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 12 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 13 of 19
1
be preferable to a class action because individual litigation would increase the delay and expense
2
to all parties and the Court and require duplicative consideration of the legal and factual issues
3
presented. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the
4
benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single
5
Court. Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered and uniformity of decisions will
6
be ensured.
7
45.
8
Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the foregoing “Class Allegations” and “Class
Definition” based on facts learned through additional investigation and in discovery. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of Revised Code of Washington § 4.24.070 (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Classes)
9 10 11
46.
Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
12
47.
Plaintiff, members of the Classes, and Defendants are all “persons” as defined by
13
RCW § 9.46.0289.
14
48.
The state of Washington’s “Recovery of money lost at gambling” statute, RCW
15
4.24.070, provides that “all persons losing money or anything of value at or on any illegal
16
gambling games shall have a cause of action to recover from the dealer or player winning, or
17
from the proprietor for whose benefit such game was played or dealt, or such money or things of
18
value won, the amount of the money or the value of the thing so lost.”
19
49.
“Gambling,” defined by RCW § 9.46.0237, “means staking or risking something
20
of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the
21
person's control or influence.”
22 23 24
50.
Defendants’ “coins” sold for use in Defendants’ online casino “thing[s] of value”
under RCW § 9.46.0285. 51.
Defendant’s online casino games are illegal gambling games because they are
25
online games at which players wager things of value (the coins) and by an element of chance
26
(e.g., by spinning an online slot machine) are able to obtain additional entertainment and extend
27
gameplay (by winning additional coins).
COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 13 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 14 of 19
1
52.
Defendants are the proprietors for whose benefit the online gambling games are
2
played because they own (or owned) the Playtika online casino games and operate those games
3
for their own profit. Specifically, CIE was the proprietor who received the benefit from the
4
Classes when it owned and operated Playtika between 2011 and October 2016.
5
53.
As such, Plaintiff and the Classes gambled when they purchased coins to wager at
6
Playtika’s online gambling games. Plaintiff and each member of the Classes staked money, in the
7
form of coins purchased with money, at Playtika’s games of chance (e.g., Playtika’s online slot
8
machines) for the chance of winning additional things of value (e.g., coins that extend gameplay
9
without additional charge).
10 11
54.
In addition, Playtika’s online slot machines are not “pinball machine[s] or similar
mechanical amusement device[s]” as contemplated by the statute because:
12
a.
the games are electronic rather than mechanical;
13
b.
the games confer replays but they are recorded and can be redeemed on
14
separate occasions (i.e., they are not “immediate and unrecorded”); and
15
c.
16
free games or the number of free games which may be won (e.g., the games allow
17
for different wager amounts and some allow for the player to win on multiple
18
“lines”).
19
55.
the games contain electronic mechanisms that vary the chance of winning
RCW § 9.46.0285 states that a “‘Thing of value,’ as used in this chapter, means
20
any money or property, any token, object or article exchangeable for money or property, or any
21
form of credit or promise, directly or indirectly, contemplating transfer of money or property or
22
of any interest therein, or involving extension of a service, entertainment or a privilege of
23
playing at a game or scheme without charge.”
24
56.
The “coins” Plaintiff and the Classes had the chance of winning in Playtika’s
25
games are “thing[s] of value” under Washington law because they are credits that involve the
26
extension of entertainment and a privilege of playing a game without charge.
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 14 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 15 of 19
1
57.
Playtika’s games are “Contest[s] of chance,” as defined by § RCW 9.46.0225,
2
because they are “contest[s], game[s], gaming scheme[s], or gaming device[s] in which the
3
outcome[s] depend[] in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill
4
of the contestants may also be a factor therein.” Playtika’s games are programmed to have
5
outcomes that are determined entirely upon chance and a contestant’s skill does not affect the
6
outcomes.
7
58.
RCW § 9.46.0201 defines “Amusement game[s]” as games where “The outcome
8
depends in a material degree upon the skill of the contestant,” amongst other requirements.
9
Playtika’s games are not “Amusement game[s]” because their outcomes are dependent entirely
10
upon chance and not upon the skill of the player and because the games are “contest[s] of
11
chance,” as defined by RCW § 9.46.0225.
12
59.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ gambling games, Plaintiff Wilson
13
and each member of the Classes have lost money wagering at Defendants’ games of chance.
14
Plaintiff Wilson, on behalf of himself and the Classes, seeks an order (1) requiring Defendants to
15
cease the operation of the gambling games; and/or (2) awarding the recovery of all lost monies,
16
interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs to the extent allowable.
17 18
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, § RCW 19.86.010, et seq. (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Classes)
19
60.
Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
20
61.
Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, RCW § 19.86.010 et seq. (“CPA”),
21
protects both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets
22
for goods and services.
23
62.
To achieve that goal, the CPA prohibits any person from using “unfair methods of
24
competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. . . .”
25
RCW § 19.86.020.
26 27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 15 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 16 of 19
1
63.
The CPA states that “a claimant may establish that the act or practice is injurious
2
to the public interest because it . . . Violates a statute that contains a specific legislative
3
declaration of public interest impact.”
4
64.
5
“The public policy of the state of Washington on gambling is to keep the criminal element out of gambling and to promote the social welfare of the people by limiting the nature and scope of gambling activities and by strict regulation and control.
6
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the legislature, recognizing the close relationship between professional gambling and organized crime, to restrain all persons from seeking profit from professional gambling activities in this state; to restrain all persons from patronizing such professional gambling activities; to safeguard the public against the evils induced by common gamblers and common gambling houses engaged in professional gambling; and at the same time, both to preserve the freedom of the press and to avoid restricting participation by individuals in activities and social pastimes, which activities and social pastimes are more for amusement rather than for profit, do not maliciously affect the public, and do not breach the peace.”
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
65.
16
66.
19 20 21 22 23 24
Defendants’ wrongful conduct occurred in the conduct of trade or commerce--
i.e., while Defendants were engaged in the operation of making computer games available to the public.
17 18
Defendants have violated RCW § 9.46.010, et seq., because its online casino
games are illegal online gambling games as described in ¶¶ 46 to 59 supra.
14 15
Defendants violated RCW § 9.46.010, et seq. which declares that:
67.
Defendants’ acts and practices were and are injurious to the public interest
because Defendants, in the course of its business, continuously advertised to and solicited the general public in Washington State and throughout the United States to play its unlawful games of chance. This was part of a pattern or generalized course of conduct on the part of Defendants, and many consumers have been adversely affected by Defendants’ conduct and the public is at risk. 68.
Defendants have profited immensely from their operation of unlawful games of
chance, amassing hundreds of millions of dollars from the losers of their games of chance.
25 26 27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 16 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 17 of 19
1
69.
As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and the Class members were injured
2
in their business or property—i.e., economic injury—in that they lost money wagering on
3
Defendants’ unlawful games of chance.
4
70.
Defendants’ unfair or deceptive conduct proximately caused Plaintiff’s and the
5
members of the Classes’ injury because, but for the challenged conduct, Plaintiff and the
6
members of the Classes would not have lost money wagering at or on Defendants’ games of
7
chance, and they did so as a direct, foreseeable, and planned consequence of that conduct.
8 9 10
71.
violation and recover actual damages and treble damages, together with the costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
11
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Unjust Enrichment (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Classes)
12 13 14
Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Classes, seeks to enjoin further
72.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
73.
Plaintiff and the Classes have conferred a benefit upon Defendant in the form of
herein.
15 16
the money Defendants received from them for the purchase of coins to wager at their online
17
casino games.
18 19
74.
Defendants appreciate and/or have knowledge of the benefits conferred upon
them by Plaintiff and the Classes.
20
75.
Under principles of equity and good conscience, Defendants should not be
21
permitted to retain the money obtained from Plaintiff and the members of the Classes, which
22
Defendants have unjustly obtained as a result of its unlawful operation of slot machines and/or
23
gambling devices. As it stands, Defendants have retained millions of dollars in profits generated
24
from their unlawful games of chance and should not be permitted to retain those ill-gotten
25
profits.
26 27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 17 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 18 of 19
1
76.
Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Classes seek full disgorgement and restitution of
2
any money Defendants have retained as a result of the unlawful and/or wrongful conduct alleged
3
herein.
4 5 6 7
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff Sean Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order: a)
Certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Classes defined above,
8
appointing Sean Wilson as representative of the Classes, and appointing his counsel as class
9
counsel;
10
b)
Declaring that Defendants’ conduct, as set out above, violates the CPA;
11
c)
Entering judgment against Defendants, in the amount of the losses suffered by
12
Plaintiff and each member of the Classes;
13
d)
Enjoining Defendants from continuing the challenged conduct;
14
e)
Awarding damages to Plaintiff and the members of the Classes in an amount to be
15 16 17
determined at trial, including trebling as appropriate; f)
Awarding restitution to Plaintiff and members of the Classes in an amount to be
determined at trial, and requiring disgorgement of all benefits that Defendants unjustly received;
18
g)
Awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses;
19
h)
Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent allowable;
20
i)
Entering judgment for injunctive and/or declaratory relief as necessary to protect
21 22
the interests of Plaintiff and the Classes; and j)
Awarding such other and further relief as equity and justice require.
23 24
JURY DEMAND Plaintiff requests a trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.
25 26 27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 18 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 19 of 19
Respectfully Submitted,
1 2
Dated: April 6, 2018 By: /s/Janissa A. Strabuk /s/Cecily C. Shiel
3 4
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, PLLC Janissa A. Strabuk [email protected] Cecily C. Shiel [email protected] 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101-4416 Tel: 206.682.5600 Fax: 206.682.2992
5 6 7 8 9
EDELSON PC Benjamin H. Richman* [email protected] 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1400 Chicago, Illinois 60654 Tel: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378
10 11 12 13 14
Rafey Balabanian* [email protected] 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, California 94107 Tel: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435
15 16 17 18 19
*Pro hac vice admission to be sought.
20
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 19 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
9 10 11
SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
12
Plaintiff,
13
COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION
v.
14 15 16 17
Case No.
PLAYTIKA, LTD an Israeli limited company, PLAYTIKA HOLDING CORP., a Delaware corporation, and CAESARS INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
JURY DEMAND
18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Plaintiff Sean Wilson brings this case, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant Playtika Ltd., Playtika Holding Corp. (collectively “Playtika”), and Caesars Interactive Entertainment, LLC (“CIE”) (collectively “Defendants”) to enjoin their operation of illegal online casino games. Plaintiff alleges as follows upon personal knowledge as to himself and his own acts and experiences, and upon information and belief, including investigation conducted by his attorneys, as to all other matters. NATURE OF THE ACTION
26 27
1.
Playtika owns and operates a leading video game development company in the so-
COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-1-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 19
1
called “casual games” industry—that is, computer games designed to appeal to a mass audience
2
of casual gamers. Playtika owns and operates a host of popular online slot machine games
3
including, inter alia, Caesars Slots, Slotomania, House of Fun, and Vegas Downtown Slots.
4
2.
Playtika provides visitors of its online slot machines a bundle of free “coins” that
5
can be used to wager on its games. After consumers inevitably lose their initial allotment of
6
coins, Playtika attempts to sell them additional coins starting at $2.99 for 20,000 coins. Without
7
coins, consumers cannot play Defendant’s online slot machines.
8 9
3.
Freshly topped off with additional coins, consumers wager to win more coins. The
coins won by consumers playing Playtika’s games of chance are identical to the coins that it
10
sells. Thus, by wagering 20,000 coins that were purchased for $2.99, consumers have the chance
11
to win hundreds of thousands of additional coins that they would otherwise have to purchase.
12
4.
By operating its online slot machines, Playtika has illegally profited from tens of
13
thousands of consumers. Accordingly, Plaintiff Wilson, on behalf of himself and the Classes of
14
similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit to recover their losses, as well as costs and
15
attorneys’ fees.
16
PARTIES
17
5.
Plaintiff Sean Wilson is a natural person and a citizen of the state of Washington.
18
6.
Defendant Playtika Ltd. is a limited company incorporated and existing under the
19
laws of Israel, with its principal place of business at 8 HaChoshlim Street, Herzliya 4672408,
20
Israel. Playtika Ltd. conducts business throughout this District, Washington State, and the United
21
States.
22
7.
Defendant Playtika Holding Corp. is a corporation incorporated and existing
23
under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 2225 Village Walk Drive
24
#240, Henderson, Nevada 89052. Playtika Holding Corp. conducts business throughout this
25
District, Washington State, and the United States.
26 27
8.
Defendant Caesars Interactive Entertainment, LLC is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business at One COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-2-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 3 of 19
1
Caesars Palace Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109. Caesars Interactive conducts business
2
throughout this District, Washington State, and the United States.
3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4
9.
Federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because
5
(a) at least one member of the class is a citizen of a state different from Defendant, (b) the
6
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and (c) none of the
7
exceptions under that subsection apply to this action.
8 9 10
10.
business in this District, and because the wrongful conduct occurred in and emanated from this District.
11 12
The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they conduct
11.
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial
part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.
13 14
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS I.
15
Free-to-Play and the New Era of Online Gambling 12.
The proliferation of internet-connected mobile devices has led to the growth of
16
what are known in the industry as “free-to-play” videogames. The term is a misnomer. It refers
17
to a model by which the initial download of the game is free, but companies reap huge profits by
18
selling thousands of “in-app” items that start at $0.99 (purchases known as “micro-transactions”
19
or “in-app purchases”).
20
13.
The in-app purchase model has become particularly attractive to developers of
21
games of chance (e.g., poker, blackjack, and slot machine mobile videogames, amongst others),
22
because it allows them to generate huge profits. In 2017, free-to-play games of chance generated
23
over $3.8 billion in worldwide revenue, and they are expected to grow by ten percent annually.1
24
Even “large land-based casino operators are looking at this new space” for “a healthy growth
25 26
1
GGRAsia – Social casino games 2017 revenue to rise 7pct plus says report, http://www.ggrasia.com/socialcasino-games-2017-revenue-to-rise-7pct-plus-says-report/ (last visited Apr. 6, 18)
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-3-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 4 of 19
1
potential.”2
2
14.
With games of chance that employ the in-game purchase strategy, developers
3
have begun exploiting the same psychological triggers as casino operators. As one respected
4
videogame publication put it: “If you hand someone a closed box full of promised goodies, many will happily pay you for the crowbar to crack it open. The tremendous power of small random packs of goodies has long been known to the creators of physical collectible card games and companies that made football stickers a decade ago. For some … the allure of a closed box full of goodies is too powerful to resist. Whatever the worth of the randomised [sic] prizes inside, the offer of a free chest and the option to buy a key will make a small fortune out of these personalities. For those that like to gamble, these crates often offer a small chance of an ultra-rare item.”3
5 6 7 8 9
15.
10
“Games may influence ‘feelings of pleasure and reward,’ but this is an addiction to the games themselves; micro-transactions play to a different kind of addiction that has existed long before video games existed, more specifically, an addiction similar to that which you could develop in casinos and betting shops.”4
11 12
16.
13 14 15 16
The comparison to casinos doesn’t end there. Just as with casino operators,
mobile game developers rely on a small portion of their players to provide the majority of their profits. These “whales,” as they’re known in casino parlance, account for just “0.15% of players” but provide “over 50% of mobile game revenue.”5 17.
17 18
Another stated:
Game Informer, another respected videogame magazine, reported on the rise (and
danger) of micro-transactions in mobile games and concluded: “[M]any new mobile and social titles target small, susceptible populations for large percentages of their revenue. If ninety-five people all play a [free-to-play] game without spending money, but five people each pour $100 or more in to obtain virtual currency, the designer can break even. These five individuals are what the industry calls whales, and we tend not to be too concerned with how they’re being used in the equation. While the scale and potential financial ruin is
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
2
Report confirms that social casino games have hit the jackpot with $1.6B in revenue | GamesBeat, https://venturebeat.com/2012/09/11/report-confirms-that-social-casino-games-have-hit-the-jackpot-with-1-6b-inrevenue/ (last visited Apr. 6, 18) 3 PC Gamer, Microtransactions: the good, the bad and the ugly, http://www.pcgamer.com/microtransactions-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ (last visited Apr. 5, 2018). 4 The Badger, Are micro-transactions ruining video games? | The Badger, http://thebadgeronline.com/2014/11/micro-transactions-ruining-video-games/ (last visited Apr. 5, 2018). 5 Id. (emphasis added).
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-4-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 5 of 19
of a different magnitude, a similar profitability model governs casino gambling.”6
1
18.
Academics have also studied the socioeconomic effect games that rely on in-app
2 purchases have on consumers. In one study, the authors compiled several sources analyzing so3 called free-to-play games of chance (called “casino” games below) and stated that: 4
“[Researchers] found that [free-to-play] casino gamers share many similar sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., employment, education, income) with online gamblers. Given these similarities, it is perhaps not surprising that a strong predictor of online gambling is engagement in [free-to-play] casino games. Putting a dark line under these findings, over half (58.3%) of disordered gamblers who were seeking treatment stated that social casino games were their first experiences with gambling.”
5 6 7 8
…
9
“According to [another study], the purchase of virtual credits or virtual items makes the activity of [free-to-play] casino gaming more similar to gambling. Thus, micro-transactions may be a crucial predictor in the migration to online gambling, as these players have now crossed a line by paying to engage in these activities. Although, [sic] only 1–5% of [free-to-play] casino gamers make microtransactions, those who purchase virtual credits spend an average of $78. Despite the limited numbers of social casino gamers purchasing virtual credits, revenues from micro-transactions account for 60 % of all [free-to-play] casino gaming revenue. Thus, a significant amount of revenue is based on players’ desire to purchase virtual credits above and beyond what is provided to the player in seed credits.”7
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
19.
The same authors looked at the link between playing free-to-play games of chance
and gambling in casinos. They stated that “prior research indicated that winning large sums of virtual credits on social casino gaming sites was a key reason for [consumers’] migration to online gambling,” yet the largest predictor that a consumer will transition to online gambling was “micro-transaction engagement.” In fact, “the odds of migration to online gambling were approximately eight times greater among people who made micro-transactions on [free-to-play] casino games compared to [free-to-play] casino gamers who did not make micro-transactions.”8
22 23 24 25 26
6
Game Informer, How Microtransactions Are Bad For Gaming - Features - www.GameInformer.com, http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/09/12/how-microtransactions-are-bad-forgaming.aspx?CommentPosted=true&PageIndex=3 (last visited Apr. 5, 2018) 7 Hyoun S. Kim, Michael J. A. Wohl, et al., Do Social Casino Gamers Migrate to Online Gambling? An Assessment of Migration Rate and Potential Predictors, Journal of gambling studies / co-sponsored by the National Council on Problem Gambling and Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming (Nov. 14, 2014), available at http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10899-014-9511-0.pdf (citations omitted). 8 Id. (emphasis added).
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-5-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 6 of 19
1
20.
The similarity between micro-transaction based games of chance and games of
2
chance found in casinos has caused governments across the world to intervene to limit their
3
availability.9 Unfortunately, such games have eluded regulation in the United States. As a result,
4
and as described below, Defendants’ online slot machine games have thrived and thousands of
5
consumers have spent millions of dollars unwittingly playing Defendants’ unlawful games of
6
chance.
7
II.
8 9
A Brief Introduction to Playtika 21.
In December 2010, Playtika launched an online casino game called Slotomania.
Over the years, Playtika expanded its online casino game offering and developed a host of online
10
slot machine games including, inter alia, House of Fun, Caesars Slots, and Vegas Downtown
11
Slots.
12
22.
Playtika has been through a series of mergers and acquisitions by some the largest
13
social gaming companies and casinos. In 2011, Caesars Interactive Entertainment—one of the
14
largest online, mobile, and social gaming companies with long ties to traditional casino
15
gaming—purchased Playtika. Later in 2016, Giant Interactive Group acquired Playtika and its
16
entire offering of casino games for $4.4 billion.10
17 18
23.
like Facebook and on mobile devices such as Android phones and Apple iPhones.
19 20
Consumers can play Playtika’s online slot machines through numerous websites
24.
Defendants have made large profits through their online gambling games. In 2014
alone, Playtika generated almost $280 million in revenue.11 The revenue Defendants receive
21 9
22 23 24 25 26
In late August 2014, South Korea began regulating “social gambling” games, including games similar to Defendant’s, by “ban[ning] all financial transactions directed” to the games. PokerNews.com, Korea Shuts Down All Facebook Games In Attempt To Regulate Social Gambling | PokerNews, https://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/09/korea-shuts-down-facebook-games-19204.htm (last visited Apr. 5, 2018). Similarly, “the Maltese Lotteries and Gambling Authority (LGA) invited the national Parliament to regulate all digital games with prizes by the end of 2014.” Id. 10 China's Giant leads consortium to buy Playtika for $4.4 billion, Game Beat, https://venturebeat.com/2016/07/30/chinas-giant-leads-consortium-to-buy-playtika-for-4-4-billion/ (last visited Apr. 6, 18). 11 Caesars Acquisition Company, Form 10-K, at 27, 53, http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-26XRVU/108250871x0x816171/7DEB3AB6-
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-6-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 7 of 19
1
from Playtika’s online casino games are the result of operating unlawful games of chance
2
camouflaged as innocuous videogames.
3
III.
4
Defendants’ Online Casino Contains Unlawful Games of Chance 25.
As explained above, Playtika owns and operates a host of online slot machine
5
games. Each game functions in a substantially similar fashion. That is, consumers purchase and
6
wage real money on games of chance.
7
26.
Consumers visiting Playtika’s online casino for the first time are awarded a
8
bundle of coins. For example, Playtika gives away 20,000 “coins” to new Slotomania players.
9
These free sample coins offer a taste of gambling and are designed to encourage players to get
10 11
hooked and buy more coins for real money. 27.
After they begin playing, consumers quickly lose their initial allotment coins.
12
Immediately thereafter, Playtika informs them via a “pop up” screen that they have insufficient
13
coins to place a wager. See e.g., Figures 1 and 2. Once players run out of their allotment of free
14
coins, they cannot continue to play the game without buying more coins for real money.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (Figure 1, showing Defendants’ Slotomania game on Facebook.) 24 25 26
64B5-46D9-80CC-FAE83E09DC48/CACQ-2014_Q4_Form_10-K.PDF (last visited Apr. 5, 2018).
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-7-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 8 of 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Figure 2, showing Defendants’ House of Fun game on iOS.) 28.
Concurrently with that warning, Playtika provides a link to consumers, allowing
11
them to purchase coins with real money at its electronic store. Playtika’s Slotomania online
12
casino, for example, sells coins from $2 for 7,500 coins to $50 for 320,000 coins. See Figure 3.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
(Figure 3, showing Defendants’ Slotomania coin prices) 29.
Similarly, Playtika sells coins from $2 for 131,250 coins to $50 for 4,375,000
coins on its Facebook Caesar’s Casino slot game. See Figure 4.
25 26 27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-8-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 9 of 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(Figure 4, showing Defendants’ Caesars Casino slot game coin prices) 30.
The decision to sell coins by the thousands isn’t an accident. Rather, Playtika
14
attempts to lower the perceived cost of the coins (costing just a fraction of a penny per coin)
15
while simultaneously maximizing the value of the award (awarding millions of coins in
16
jackpots), further inducing consumers to bet on its games.
17
31.
To begin wagering, players select the “BET/LINE” (i.e., bet per played line) that
18
will be used for a spin, as illustrated in Figure 5, which illustrates Playtika’s Caesar’s Slots
19
game. Playtika allows players to multiply their bet by changing the number of “lines” (i.e.,
20
combinations) on which the consumer can win, shown in Figure 5 as the “LINE” button.
21 22 23 24 25
(Figure 5, showing Defendants’ Caesars Slots game.) 32.
The bet amount multiplied by the number of lines comprises the “Total Bet”
26
shown in Figure 5. Thus, in the example shown in Figure 5, the player is attempting to bet 2,000
27
coins, or approximately $0.03, for one spin of the slot machine. COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
-9-
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 10 of 19
1
33.
Once a consumer spins the slot machine by pressing the “SPIN” button, Playtika
2
does not allow (or call for) any additional user action by the player on any of its slot machine
3
games. Instead, the consumer’s computer or mobile device communicates with and sends
4
information (such as the “Total Bet” amount) to Playtika’s servers. Playtika’s servers then
5
execute the game’s algorithms that determine the spin’s outcome. Notably, none of Defendants’
6
games depend on any amount of skill to determine their outcomes—all outcomes are based
7
entirely on chance.
8
34.
9
Consumers can continue playing with the coins that they won, or they can exit the
game and return at a later time to play because Playtika maintains win and loss records and
10
account balances for each consumer. Indeed, once Playtika’s algorithms determine the outcome
11
of a spin and Playtika displays the outcome to the consumer, it adjusts the consumer’s account
12
balance. Playtika keeps records of each wager, outcome, win, and loss for every player.
13 14
FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF WILSON 35.
Since at least 2012, Plaintiff Wilson has been playing Playtika’s online slot
15
machines. Specifically, Wilson has played “House of Fun” and “Slotomania Slots” on his iOS
16
devices, and “Slotomania” and “Caesars Slots” on Facebook.
17 18 19
36.
After Plaintiff lost the balance of his initial allocation of free coins, he began
purchasing coins from Defendants for use in its online slot machine games. 37.
Thereafter, Plaintiff Wilson continued playing Playtika’s slot machines where he
20
would wager coins for the chance of winning additional coins. Starting in September 2016,
21
Plaintiff Wilson wagered and lost (and Defendants therefore won) over $10 at Defendants’
22
games of chance.
23 24
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 38.
Class Definition: Plaintiff Wilson brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
25
23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of himself and the Class and Subclass (collectively the “Classes”)
26
of similarly situated individuals, defined as follows:
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 10 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 11 of 19
1
Class: All persons in the State of Washington who purchased and lost coins playing Defendants’ slot machine games.
2
CIE Subclass All persons in the State of Washington who purchased and lost coins playing Defendants’ slot machine games before October 22, 2016.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
The following people are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendants, Defendants’ subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or its parents have a controlling interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Classes; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants’ counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. 39.
Numerosity: On information and belief, tens of thousands of consumers fall into
the definition of the Classes. Members of the Classes can be identified through Defendants’ records, discovery, and other third-party sources. 40.
Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact
common to Plaintiff’s and the Classes’ claims, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual members of the Classes. Common questions for the Classes include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: a.
19 20
RCW § 9.46.0237; b.
21 22
c.
Whether Plaintiff and each member of the Class lost money or anything of value by gambling;
d.
25 26
Whether Defendants are the proprietor for whose benefit the online casino games are played;
23 24
Whether Defendants’ online casino games are “gambling” as defined by
Whether Defendants violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW § 19.86.010, et seq.; and
e.
Whether Defendants has been unjustly enriched as a result of its conduct.
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 11 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 12 of 19
1
41.
Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the
2
Classes, in that Plaintiff’s and the members of the Classes sustained damages arising out of
3
Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
4
42.
Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and
5
protect the interests of the Classes and has retained counsel competent and experienced in
6
complex litigation and class actions. Plaintiff’s claims are representative of the claims of the
7
other members of the Classes, as Plaintiff and each member of the Classes lost money playing
8
Defendants’ games of chance. Plaintiff also has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes,
9
and Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to
10
vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the Classes and have the financial resources to do
11
so. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel have any interest adverse to the Classes.
12
43.
Policies Generally Applicable to the Classes: This class action is appropriate for
13
certification because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
14
the Classes as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure
15
compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Classes and making final injunctive
16
relief appropriate with respect to the Classes as a whole. Defendants’ policies that Plaintiff
17
challenges apply and affect members of the Classes uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of these
18
policies hinges on Defendants’ conduct with respect to the Classes as a whole, not on facts or
19
law applicable only to Plaintiff. The factual and legal bases of Defendants’ liability to Plaintiff
20
and to the other members of the Classes are the same.
21
44.
Superiority: This case is also appropriate for certification because class
22
proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
23
this controversy. The harm suffered by the individual members of the Classes is likely to have
24
been relatively small compared to the burden and expense of prosecuting individual actions to
25
redress Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Absent a class action, it would be difficult, if not
26
impossible, for the individual members of the Classes to obtain effective relief from Defendants.
27
Even if members of the Classes themselves could sustain such individual litigation, it would not COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 12 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 13 of 19
1
be preferable to a class action because individual litigation would increase the delay and expense
2
to all parties and the Court and require duplicative consideration of the legal and factual issues
3
presented. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the
4
benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single
5
Court. Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered and uniformity of decisions will
6
be ensured.
7
45.
8
Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the foregoing “Class Allegations” and “Class
Definition” based on facts learned through additional investigation and in discovery. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of Revised Code of Washington § 4.24.070 (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Classes)
9 10 11
46.
Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
12
47.
Plaintiff, members of the Classes, and Defendants are all “persons” as defined by
13
RCW § 9.46.0289.
14
48.
The state of Washington’s “Recovery of money lost at gambling” statute, RCW
15
4.24.070, provides that “all persons losing money or anything of value at or on any illegal
16
gambling games shall have a cause of action to recover from the dealer or player winning, or
17
from the proprietor for whose benefit such game was played or dealt, or such money or things of
18
value won, the amount of the money or the value of the thing so lost.”
19
49.
“Gambling,” defined by RCW § 9.46.0237, “means staking or risking something
20
of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the
21
person's control or influence.”
22 23 24
50.
Defendants’ “coins” sold for use in Defendants’ online casino “thing[s] of value”
under RCW § 9.46.0285. 51.
Defendant’s online casino games are illegal gambling games because they are
25
online games at which players wager things of value (the coins) and by an element of chance
26
(e.g., by spinning an online slot machine) are able to obtain additional entertainment and extend
27
gameplay (by winning additional coins).
COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 13 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 14 of 19
1
52.
Defendants are the proprietors for whose benefit the online gambling games are
2
played because they own (or owned) the Playtika online casino games and operate those games
3
for their own profit. Specifically, CIE was the proprietor who received the benefit from the
4
Classes when it owned and operated Playtika between 2011 and October 2016.
5
53.
As such, Plaintiff and the Classes gambled when they purchased coins to wager at
6
Playtika’s online gambling games. Plaintiff and each member of the Classes staked money, in the
7
form of coins purchased with money, at Playtika’s games of chance (e.g., Playtika’s online slot
8
machines) for the chance of winning additional things of value (e.g., coins that extend gameplay
9
without additional charge).
10 11
54.
In addition, Playtika’s online slot machines are not “pinball machine[s] or similar
mechanical amusement device[s]” as contemplated by the statute because:
12
a.
the games are electronic rather than mechanical;
13
b.
the games confer replays but they are recorded and can be redeemed on
14
separate occasions (i.e., they are not “immediate and unrecorded”); and
15
c.
16
free games or the number of free games which may be won (e.g., the games allow
17
for different wager amounts and some allow for the player to win on multiple
18
“lines”).
19
55.
the games contain electronic mechanisms that vary the chance of winning
RCW § 9.46.0285 states that a “‘Thing of value,’ as used in this chapter, means
20
any money or property, any token, object or article exchangeable for money or property, or any
21
form of credit or promise, directly or indirectly, contemplating transfer of money or property or
22
of any interest therein, or involving extension of a service, entertainment or a privilege of
23
playing at a game or scheme without charge.”
24
56.
The “coins” Plaintiff and the Classes had the chance of winning in Playtika’s
25
games are “thing[s] of value” under Washington law because they are credits that involve the
26
extension of entertainment and a privilege of playing a game without charge.
27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 14 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 15 of 19
1
57.
Playtika’s games are “Contest[s] of chance,” as defined by § RCW 9.46.0225,
2
because they are “contest[s], game[s], gaming scheme[s], or gaming device[s] in which the
3
outcome[s] depend[] in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill
4
of the contestants may also be a factor therein.” Playtika’s games are programmed to have
5
outcomes that are determined entirely upon chance and a contestant’s skill does not affect the
6
outcomes.
7
58.
RCW § 9.46.0201 defines “Amusement game[s]” as games where “The outcome
8
depends in a material degree upon the skill of the contestant,” amongst other requirements.
9
Playtika’s games are not “Amusement game[s]” because their outcomes are dependent entirely
10
upon chance and not upon the skill of the player and because the games are “contest[s] of
11
chance,” as defined by RCW § 9.46.0225.
12
59.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ gambling games, Plaintiff Wilson
13
and each member of the Classes have lost money wagering at Defendants’ games of chance.
14
Plaintiff Wilson, on behalf of himself and the Classes, seeks an order (1) requiring Defendants to
15
cease the operation of the gambling games; and/or (2) awarding the recovery of all lost monies,
16
interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs to the extent allowable.
17 18
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, § RCW 19.86.010, et seq. (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Classes)
19
60.
Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
20
61.
Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, RCW § 19.86.010 et seq. (“CPA”),
21
protects both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets
22
for goods and services.
23
62.
To achieve that goal, the CPA prohibits any person from using “unfair methods of
24
competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. . . .”
25
RCW § 19.86.020.
26 27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 15 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 16 of 19
1
63.
The CPA states that “a claimant may establish that the act or practice is injurious
2
to the public interest because it . . . Violates a statute that contains a specific legislative
3
declaration of public interest impact.”
4
64.
5
“The public policy of the state of Washington on gambling is to keep the criminal element out of gambling and to promote the social welfare of the people by limiting the nature and scope of gambling activities and by strict regulation and control.
6
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the legislature, recognizing the close relationship between professional gambling and organized crime, to restrain all persons from seeking profit from professional gambling activities in this state; to restrain all persons from patronizing such professional gambling activities; to safeguard the public against the evils induced by common gamblers and common gambling houses engaged in professional gambling; and at the same time, both to preserve the freedom of the press and to avoid restricting participation by individuals in activities and social pastimes, which activities and social pastimes are more for amusement rather than for profit, do not maliciously affect the public, and do not breach the peace.”
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
65.
16
66.
19 20 21 22 23 24
Defendants’ wrongful conduct occurred in the conduct of trade or commerce--
i.e., while Defendants were engaged in the operation of making computer games available to the public.
17 18
Defendants have violated RCW § 9.46.010, et seq., because its online casino
games are illegal online gambling games as described in ¶¶ 46 to 59 supra.
14 15
Defendants violated RCW § 9.46.010, et seq. which declares that:
67.
Defendants’ acts and practices were and are injurious to the public interest
because Defendants, in the course of its business, continuously advertised to and solicited the general public in Washington State and throughout the United States to play its unlawful games of chance. This was part of a pattern or generalized course of conduct on the part of Defendants, and many consumers have been adversely affected by Defendants’ conduct and the public is at risk. 68.
Defendants have profited immensely from their operation of unlawful games of
chance, amassing hundreds of millions of dollars from the losers of their games of chance.
25 26 27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 16 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 17 of 19
1
69.
As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and the Class members were injured
2
in their business or property—i.e., economic injury—in that they lost money wagering on
3
Defendants’ unlawful games of chance.
4
70.
Defendants’ unfair or deceptive conduct proximately caused Plaintiff’s and the
5
members of the Classes’ injury because, but for the challenged conduct, Plaintiff and the
6
members of the Classes would not have lost money wagering at or on Defendants’ games of
7
chance, and they did so as a direct, foreseeable, and planned consequence of that conduct.
8 9 10
71.
violation and recover actual damages and treble damages, together with the costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
11
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Unjust Enrichment (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Classes)
12 13 14
Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Classes, seeks to enjoin further
72.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
73.
Plaintiff and the Classes have conferred a benefit upon Defendant in the form of
herein.
15 16
the money Defendants received from them for the purchase of coins to wager at their online
17
casino games.
18 19
74.
Defendants appreciate and/or have knowledge of the benefits conferred upon
them by Plaintiff and the Classes.
20
75.
Under principles of equity and good conscience, Defendants should not be
21
permitted to retain the money obtained from Plaintiff and the members of the Classes, which
22
Defendants have unjustly obtained as a result of its unlawful operation of slot machines and/or
23
gambling devices. As it stands, Defendants have retained millions of dollars in profits generated
24
from their unlawful games of chance and should not be permitted to retain those ill-gotten
25
profits.
26 27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 17 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 18 of 19
1
76.
Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Classes seek full disgorgement and restitution of
2
any money Defendants have retained as a result of the unlawful and/or wrongful conduct alleged
3
herein.
4 5 6 7
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff Sean Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order: a)
Certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Classes defined above,
8
appointing Sean Wilson as representative of the Classes, and appointing his counsel as class
9
counsel;
10
b)
Declaring that Defendants’ conduct, as set out above, violates the CPA;
11
c)
Entering judgment against Defendants, in the amount of the losses suffered by
12
Plaintiff and each member of the Classes;
13
d)
Enjoining Defendants from continuing the challenged conduct;
14
e)
Awarding damages to Plaintiff and the members of the Classes in an amount to be
15 16 17
determined at trial, including trebling as appropriate; f)
Awarding restitution to Plaintiff and members of the Classes in an amount to be
determined at trial, and requiring disgorgement of all benefits that Defendants unjustly received;
18
g)
Awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses;
19
h)
Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent allowable;
20
i)
Entering judgment for injunctive and/or declaratory relief as necessary to protect
21 22
the interests of Plaintiff and the Classes; and j)
Awarding such other and further relief as equity and justice require.
23 24
JURY DEMAND Plaintiff requests a trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.
25 26 27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 18 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 19 of 19
Respectfully Submitted,
1 2
Dated: April 6, 2018 By: /s/Janissa A. Strabuk /s/Cecily C. Shiel
3 4
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, PLLC Janissa A. Strabuk [email protected] Cecily C. Shiel [email protected] 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101-4416 Tel: 206.682.5600 Fax: 206.682.2992
5 6 7 8 9
EDELSON PC Benjamin H. Richman* [email protected] 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1400 Chicago, Illinois 60654 Tel: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378
10 11 12 13 14
Rafey Balabanian* [email protected] 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, California 94107 Tel: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435
15 16 17 18 19
*Pro hac vice admission to be sought.
20
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION Case No.
T OUSLEY B RAIN S TEPHENS , PLLC
- 19 -
1700 S eventh A venue,S uite 2200 S eattle,W ashington 98101-4416 T el:206.682.5600 • Fax:206.682.2992
This is very, very true, and where “games” mimic gambling, you can bet the money flows. Slotomania Overview Slotomania was first mentioned on PissedConsumer on Mar 06, 2020 and since then this brand received 8 reviews. This will be posted quickly, exposing the company and letting others see what happened to you! Useless by all standards but enough that the aformentioned lawsuit will not be valid.
After the players use all of the free coins given to first time visitors, players would then have to buy additional coins to continue playing.
I am now out almost $160 and I don't get the lucky spin. Game has had a glitch in the bonus lounge for a week. All iam asking is bring back the fun and not make it to where we dont want to play anymore.
Magnum Ice Cream Lawsuit Arises, Ringless Voicemails and Unwanted Texts? Private messages do not impact your company rating. When I win exemple : 23m well the calculator adds up 20M instead. You don’t get the chips you win. [protected]@msn.com. A full copy of the Playtika Class Action Lawsuit Complaint is embedded below for your convenience: This piece is written about the recent Playtika Lawsuit. If you don’t buy then you can’t experience all aspects of the games. Luckily, there are other places that seem to be way more organized and fair. I have rebooted my IPAD several different times. It was always my contention that the game performance be it corrupt, programmed or manipulated was of no concern so long as they did not take any real money of mine. But I can't since the info is only available after successfully opening the app. Please award my coins as I love playing. ave no problem with censorship. Some one time as well as recurring. So tired of this crap with slotomania u get ace pack u get same thing u go to customer support all u get is excuses. They pride themselves on having the “best, most popular” slot game on the internet. Your game is a huge rip-off!!! All Rights Reserved. Plus Slotomania’s math is horrible. But what can you expect from hillbillies and Karens? We are an independent complaint resolution platform that has been successfully voicing consumer concerns since 2004. Online casino games play for real money. The current promotion says if you get the lucky spin you can get a wild card or 5* card depending on how high the multiplier is. Last week was the first time I actually was doing really well. I have spent thousands. It’s no different than the guy who goes to a casino to bet real money except In Slotomania you don’t win anything. Family did not know, I was embarrassed to tell them I am basically gambling for nothing in return. The game team is trying to find the root cause of the issue and is in contact with Facebook to resolve this at the earliest. They did nothing to make it better!! Keep your money closer and keep your casino operator closer. They are free as they do give periodic bonuses. You need to check out this issue as well as either reimburse my money or my coins Or if you have had other similar experiences where money has been withdrawn from your accounts with no products being delivered. Take a photo of a faulty item and add a brief description. So it seems the cheats are liars as well as the first response is usually denial. there scam artist i even contacted the developer and got no where. It’s just “cost of doing business” as they allow people to go into massive debt because like many of you they are all gambling addicts. It’s the same thing as a real casino but Slotomania isn’t regulated or have standards to prove they are truly random. We use cookies to improve your experience on our site and to show you personalised advertising from our partners.By using this website you agree to our Cookies Policy. Please share with me the number of times this has occurred, the amounts of losses, your attempts to recover your losses, how you were treated, your results and any thing else you would like to share with us. When first started out my piggy bank went from 1.99 to 24.99 and now it is 44.99 to break it. Jersty Keith sloto player.
They hook people who get addicted to the challenge and then rip them off. Every time I start the app it says connection lost. So not everyone playing is on a even playing field during events. In over all I think that Slotomania should give me back in the lease between 10B and 20 Billions coins and fix the calculator. Neither purchase gave me what the promotion is. They say its a 'technical difficulty' which is surely not the case. I have been trying for days. They don’t even have to pay back real cash like a real casino. To sum up here, playtika and slotomania do not care if you lose your money. She told me they use robot players and can see everyones hands to make it impossible to win. My sloto dash is really at a high price, some people pay 1.99$ and my is 13.99$ that's not fair. The win loss ratio is way off with only 1 win per 15-20 spins and not in anyway equal to the amounts already spent.only after you have spent hundreds of dollars in the month will it then allow you to win a large amount of coins only then to have you lose in a very short amount of time thus enticing you to purchase more coins. Go, play those games, lost thousand of money then complain like a bunch of monkeys. Our diverse portfolio of games is synchronized across . All other items I requested refunds for have been redirected to the developers who have been paid for these items. They basically up your minimum requirements to play features in the games to force you to bet higher so you lose more and then punish you for it but upping the requirements the next day because you bet more. I'm sick of the horrible language! It's crashes. We will not be able to send you a proof as it is internally done but rest assured that you will see a silver lining soon. Username and password will be sent to you via email. I placed first online food delivery and I received a free whooper for signing.. Guthy-Renker is a SCAM. Initially, this happened approximately once a week for a small amount.. Now its almost every time I turn off the game.
The Checkers data breach Read More, The Issue at Hand: JUUL Addiction in Teens Within the last few years, the popularity of the JUUL e-cigarette has grown immensely throughout the country—skyrocketing JUUL to a business valued at approximately $38 billion after tobacco giant Altria recently purchased a 35% stake in the company. good luck with the class action suit. Help me keep playing. Playtika Wsop Video Game.
What is your current level? I Have lost as much as 3 billion coins in one game trying to get a bonus betting 2million a spin.”RNG” I think not.They are programed for u to lose so they can sell worthless tokens.Why oh why would I spend 13.99 to buy 300 million tokens when u can’t win with 3 billion.There greed is only surpassed by their stupidity, Magnum Ice Cream Class Action Lawsuit A Magnum Ice Cream Class Action was filed last week regarding the brands advertising practices. Or were loyal!! I would like my money back.
Playtika Lawsuit
Casinos in lafayette la area. Mark Templin Carrie Hamilton,Matcha Before Bed,Kathleen Bradley Age In Friday,Jordan Yamamoto Contract,Does Finn Die In The 100 Season 1 Episode 13,Gia Giudice Name Necklace,Fuel Sending Unit Float Napa,Lab Rat Jokes,A Good Agile Team Should Exhibit The Following Qualities Mcq,How To Get Rid Of Frog In Candy Crush Level 2644,Words To Describe Ron Weasley,Ddos Xbox One,Can Olive Oil Cure Dark Circles,Narrative Exposure Therapy Training 2020,Jersey Shore: Family Vacation Season 3 Episode 21 Stream,Loretta Chase Felicia Pearson,Tom Brady Niece Adopted,Border Collie Growth Chart Height,Jaffa Oranges In Usa,Taeyang Height In Feet,Shaw Direct Runo Code,Masahiro Sakurai Height,Renai Circulation Lyrics English,Casey Keegan Wikipedia,John Byner Mandy,Itv Viet V3 Vietnamese Internet Tv Box,Star Wars Galaxy Map Kamino,End Of Fight Club Explained,Smith County Busted Newspaper,Curly Hair Check Tik Tok Song,Leonberger Breeders Midwest,Zuleyka Rivera Husband,Calvin Pryor Net Worth,Parlement Tv Series Where To Watch,Percy Jackson God Of Elements Fanfiction,The Lighthouse Mermaid,Dwayne Johnson Twin Brother,Adiye Enna Raagam Song Shooting Location,Funny Son Poems,Max Perlich Skateboarding,2020 Monthly Disaster Meme,
Playtika Games On Facebook
Playtika Slotomania Complaints App
PLAYTIKA Ripoff Reports, Complaints, Reviews, Scams, Lawsuits and Frauds Reported Your Search: Playtika. There may be more reports for 'Playtika'. Playtika Slotomania Internet. Computer Fraud: Playtika Internet. Author: Irving, Texas. Twisted sister symbol. 12, Report #1243657. Jul 22 2015 09:02 PM.