Additionally, the Commission stated, “We are not a party to the civil court case, we did not testify in the case, and we did not order these sites to discontinue free online play for Washington residents.”Įqually important, the Ninth Circuit’s decision was based on a dismissal, which requires that the reviewing court accept all allegations in the complaint as true. The Commission advised concerned customers to contact the operators directly, and expressed no opinion on the legality of such games in light of the recent opinion. Accordingly, one week after the opinion was issued, the Commission issued a neutral news release noting that online social gaming sites, including Poker Stars, have made business decisions to block Washington residents. Notably, this decision contradicted the Washington State Gambling Commission’s prior publications regarding the legality of such social gaming in Washington. The decision was based on Washington’s unusual statutory definition of “thing of value,” which reads: ny money or property, any token, object or article exchangeable for money or property, or any form of credit or promise, directly or indirectly, contemplating transfer of money or property or of any interest therein, or involving extension of a service, entertainment or a privilege of playing at a game or scheme without charge. In sum, the Court held that the virtual chips constituted a “thing of value,” and therefore, Big Fish had conducted illegal gambling under Washington law. Kater filed an appeal, and on March 28, 2018, the Ninth Circuit overturned Judge Pechman’s decision. Pechman, who was serving as the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at the time, dismissed Ms. Edelson brought similar lawsuits in various jurisdictions (Maryland, Illinois, Ohio), that were ultimately dismissed. Kater, Edelson PC, is well-versed in these cases. Kater should recover any monies she spent with Big Fish. The crux of the argument was that Big Fish conducted illegal gambling under Washington state law-and therefore, Ms. In 2015, Cheryl Kater brought a purported class action alleging that she (and others similarly situated) should recover monies they spent on Big Fish Casino under Washington’s “Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act” (“RMLGA”) and Consumer Protection Act, as well as under a theory of unjust enrichment. Big Fish Games was owned by Churchill Downs Incorporated, and subsequently sold to Aristocrat Leisure Limited earlier this year. ![]() Similar to many other providers, users are awarded free chips when they create their account and may obtain additional chips by winning games, via free chip replenishment, or by purchasing additional chips. Ninth Circuit decision regarding Big Fish Casino causes some operators to block play in Washington State - sparks potential class actions against operatorsīig Fish Casino is a social gaming application that provides “freemium” online casino games.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |