throbber
Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 1 of 19
`
`THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`ADRIENNE BENSON AND MARY
`SIMONSON, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`DOUBLE DOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC, a
`Washington limited liability company, and
`INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY,
`a Nevada corporation, and IGT, a Nevada
`corporation.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs Adrienne Benson and Mary Simonson (“Plaintiffs”) bring this case,
`
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Double Down Interactive, LLC
`(“Double Down”) as well as International Game Technology and its subsidiary IGT (together
`“IGT”) (altogether, collectively, “Defendants”) to enjoin Defendants’ operation of illegal online
`casino games. Plaintiffs allege as follows upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their
`own acts and experiences, and upon information and belief, including investigation conducted by
`their attorneys, as to all other matters.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`- 1 -
`
`EDELSON PC
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 • Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`Defendants own and operate video game development companies in the so-called
`“casual games” industry—that is, computer games designed to appeal to a mass audience of
`casual gamers. Defendants (at all relevant times) owned and operated a popular online casino
`under the name Double Down Casino.
`2.
`Double Down Casino is available to play on Android, and Apple iOS devices, and
`on Facebook.
`3.
`Defendants provide a bundle of free “chips” to first-time visitors of Double Down
`Casino that can be used to wager on games within Double Down Casino. After consumers
`inevitably lose their initial allotment of chips, Defendants attempt to sell them additional chips
`for real money. Without chips, consumers cannot play the gambling game.
`4.
`Freshly topped off with additional chips, consumers wager to win more chips. The
`chips won by consumers playing Defendants’ games of chance are identical to the chips that
`Defendants sell. Thus, by wagering chips that have been purchased for real money, consumers
`have the chance to win additional chips that they would otherwise have to purchase.
`5.
`By operating the Double Down Casino, Defendants have violated Washington
`law and illegally profited from tens of thousands of consumers. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf
`of themselves and a Class of similarly situated individuals, bring this lawsuit to recover their
`losses, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff Adrienne Benson is a natural person and a citizen of the state of
`
`Plaintiff Mary Simonson is a natural person and a citizen of the state of
`
`6.
`Washington.
`7.
`Washington.
`8.
`Defendant Double Down Interactive, LLC is a limited liability company
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington with its principal place of
`business at 605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 300, Seattle, Washington 98104. Double Down
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`EDELSON PC
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 • Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`
`conducts business throughout this District, Washington State, and the United States.
`9.
`Defendant International Game Technology is a corporation existing and organized
`under the laws of the State of Nevada with its principal place of business at 6355 South Buffalo
`Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89113. International Game Technology conducts business throughout
`this District, Washington State, and the United States.
`10.
`Defendant IGT, a subsidiary of International Game Technology, is a corporation
`existing and organized under the laws of the State of Nevada with its principal place of business
`at 6355 South Buffalo Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89113. IGT conducts business throughout this
`District, Washington State, and the United States. IGT conducts business throughout this
`District, Washington State, and the United States.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`11.
`Federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because
`(a) at least one member of the class is a citizen of a state different from any Defendants, (b) the
`amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and (c) none of the
`exceptions under that subsection apply to this action.
`12.
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants conduct
`significant business transactions in this District, and because the wrongful conduct occurred in
`and emanated from this District.
`13.
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial
`part of the evens giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in and emanated from this District.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`Free-to-Play and the New Era of Online Gambling
`14.
`The proliferation of internet-connected mobile devices has led to the growth of
`what are known in the industry as “free-to-play” videogames. The term is a misnomer. It refers
`to a model by which the initial download of the game is free, but companies reap huge profits by
`selling thousands of “in-game” items that start at $0.99 (purchases known as “micro-
`transactions” or “in-app purchases”).
`
`I.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`EDELSON PC
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 • Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`
`15.
`The in-app purchase model has become particularly attractive to developers of
`games of chance (e.g., poker, blackjack, and slot machine mobile videogames, amongst others),
`because it allows them to generate huge profits. In 2017, free-to-play games of chance generated
`over $3.8 billion in worldwide revenue, and they are expected to grow by ten percent annually.1
`Even “large land-based casino operators are looking at this new space” for “a healthy growth
`potential.”2
`16. With games of chance that employ the in-game purchase strategy, developers
`have begun exploiting the same psychological triggers as casino operators. As one respected
`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
`17.
`Another stated:
` “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
`18.
`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
`
`
`GGRAsia – Social casino games 2017 revenue to rise 7pct plus says report, http://www.ggrasia.com/social-
`1
`casino-games-2017-revenue-to-rise-7pct-plus-says-report/ (last visited Jul 23, 18)
`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-in-
`revenue/ (last visited Jul. 23, 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).
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`EDELSON PC
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 • Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`
`19.
`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
`of a different magnitude, a similar profitability model governs casino gambling.”6
`20.
`Academics have also studied the socioeconomic effect games that rely on in-app
`purchases have on consumers. In one study, the authors compiled several sources analyzing so-
`called free-to-play games of chance (called “casino” games below) and stated that:
`“[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.”
`
`
`“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 micro-
`transactions, 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
`21.
`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
`
`Game Informer, How Microtransactions Are Bad For Gaming - Features - www.GameInformer.com,
`6
`http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/09/12/how-microtransactions-are-bad-for-
`gaming.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).
`
` …
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`EDELSON PC
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 • Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`
`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.
`The similarity between micro-transaction games of chance and games of chance
`found in casinos has caused governments across the world to intervene to limit their availability.9
`Unfortunately, such games have eluded regulation in the United States. As a result, and as
`described below, Defendants’ online casino games have thrived and thousands of consumers
`have spent millions of dollars unwittingly playing Defendants’ unlawful games of chance.
`II.
`A Brief Introduction to Double Down and IGT
`23.
`Double Down is a leading game developer with an extensive library of free-to-
`play online casino games. Double Down sells in-app chips to consumers in the Double Down
`Casino so that consumers can play various online casino games in Double Down Casino.
`24.
`IGT is a global leader in the gaming industry with long ties to the traditional
`casino market. It has developed a multitude of casino and lottery games, including traditional slot
`machines and video lottery terminals. In 2012, IGT acquired Double Down and its library of
`online casino games, and has since “grown into one of the largest and most successful brands in
`the North American social casino market.”10
`25.
`In 2017, IGT sold Double Down for $825 million to DoubleU Games.11 In
`addition to the sale, IGT has also entered into a long-term game development and distribution
`
`
`
`Id. (emphasis added).
`8
`In late August 2014, South Korea began regulating “social gambling” games, including games similar to
`9
`Defendants’, 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
`IGT To Sell Online Casino Unit DoubleDown To South Korean Firm For $825 Million - Poker News,
`https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/21554-igt-to-sell-online-casino-unit-doubledown-to-south-korean-firm-for-
`825-million (last visited Ap. 6, 2018).
`11
`Id.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`EDELSON PC
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 • Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`
`agreement with DoubleU to offer its online casino games in Double Down Casino.12 IGT notes
`that it will continue to collect royalties from its online casino game content.13
`26.
`Defendants have made large profits through their online casino games. In 2016,
`alone, Double Down generated $280 million in revenue. As explained further below, however,
`the revenue Defendants receives from Double Down Casino is the result of operating unlawful
`games of chance camouflaged as innocuous videogames.
`III. Defendants’ Online Casino Contains Unlawful Games of Chance
`27.
`Consumers visiting Double Down Casino for the first time are awarded 1 million
`free chips. See Figure 1. These free sample chips offer a taste of gambling and are designed to
`encourage player to get hooked and buy more chips for real money.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Figure 1.)
`28.
`After they begin playing, consumers quickly lose their initial allotment of chips.
`Immediately thereafter, Double Down Casino informs them via a “pop up” screen that they have
`“insufficient funds.” See Figure 2. Once a player runs out of their allotment of free chips, they
`
`
`12
` IGT Completes Sale Of Double Down Interactive LLC To DoubleU Games,
`https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/igt-completes-sale-of-double-down-interactive-llc-to-doubleu-games-
`300467524.html (last visited Apr. 6, 2018).
`13
`Id.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`EDELSON PC
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 • Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 8 of 19
`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 8 of 19
`
`cannot continue to play the game without buying more chips for real money.
`
`Welcome
`
`te
`
`eeu!
`
`
`
`TsTo) ee $500
`
`
`
`WHERE THE WORLD PLAYS!
`
`(Figure 2.)
`
`29.
`
`_Tocontinue playing the online casino game, consumers navigate to Double Down
`
`Casino’s electronic store to purchase chips ranging in price from $2.99 for 300,000 chips to
`
`$99.99 for 100,000,000 chips. See Figure 3.
`
`Select a Chip Package
`
`DIAMONDpci)
`300,000 Chips
`+30 Loyelty Prs
`
`Him
`
`1,000,000 Chips
`
`+BO Loyalty Prs.
`
`.
`
`$2.99
`
`rete)
`
`3,000,000 Chips
`
`+180 Layay Ps.
`
`Pa pe
`
`12,000,000 Chips
`
`-400 Loysity Prs
`
`wel
`
`as
`
`35,000,000 Chips
`
`+00 Loyalty Pra
`
`re,
`
`100,000,000 Chips
`
`+1,000 Loyalty Ps.
`
`a,
`
`err)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`ew
`eee i [cs |e|
`
`27
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`(Figure3.)
`26
`
`30.
`
`The decisionto sell chips by the thousands isn’t an accident. Rather, Defendants
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`-8-
`
`EDELSON PC ©
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 = Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`
`attempt to lower the perceived cost of the chips (costing just a fraction of a penny per chip) while
`simultaneously maximizing the value of the award (awarding millions of chips in jackpots),
`further inducing consumers to bet on their games.
`31.
`To begin wagering, players select the “LINE BET” that will be used for a spin, as
`illustrated in Figure 4. Double Down Casino allows players to increase or decrease the amount
`he or she can wager and ultimately win (or lose). Double Down Casino allows players to
`multiply their bet by changing the number of “lines” (i.e., combinations) on which the consumer
`can win, shown in Figure 4 as the “LINE” button.
`
`
`
`
`(Figure 4.)
`32.
`Once a consumer spins the slot machine by pressing “SPIN” button, no action on
`his or her part is required. Indeed, none of the Double Down Casino games allow (or call for)
`any additional user action. Instead, the consumer’s computer or mobile device communicates
`with and sends information (such as the “TOTAL BET” amount) to the Double Down Casino
`servers. The servers then execute the game’s algorithms that determine the spin’s outcome.
`Notably, none of Defendants’ games depend on any amount of skill to determine their
`outcomes—all outcomes are based entirely on chance.
`
`33.
`Consumers can continue playing with the chips that they won, or they can exit the
`game and return at a later time to play because Double Down Casino maintains win and loss
`records and account balances for each consumer. Indeed, once Defendants’ algorithms determine
`the outcome of a spin and Double Down Casino displays the outcome to the consumer,
`Defendants adjusts the consumer’s account balance. Defendants keep records of each wager,
`outcome, win, and loss for every player.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`EDELSON PC
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 • Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`
`FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF BENSON
`34.
`Since 2013, Plaintiff Benson has been playing Double Down Casino on
`Facebook. After Benson lost the balance of her initial allocation of free chips, she purchased
`chips from the Double Down Casino electronic store.
`35.
`Thereafter, Benson continued playing various slot machines and other games of
`chance within the Double Down Casino where she would wager chips for the chance of winning
`additional chips. Since 2016, Benson has wagered and lost (and Defendants therefore won) over
`$1,000 at Defendants’ games of chance.
`FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF SIMONSON
`36.
`Since 2017, Plaintiff Simonson has been playing Double Down Casino on her
`mobile phone. After Simonson lost the balance of her initial allocation of free chips, she
`purchased chips from the Double Down Casino electronic store.
`37.
`Thereafter, Simonson continued playing various slot machines and other games of
`chance within the Double Down Casino where she would wager chips for the chance of winning
`additional chips. Since December 2017, Simonson has wagered and lost (and Defendants
`therefore won) over $200 at Defendants’ games of chance.
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`Class Definition: Plaintiffs Benson and Simonson bring this action pursuant to
`38.
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of themselves and a Class of similarly situated
`individuals, defined as follows:
`All persons in the United States who purchased and lost chips by wagering
`at the Double Down Casino.
`The following people are excluded from the Class: (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 their parents have a
`controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who
`properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`EDELSON PC
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 • Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiffs’
`counsel and Defendants’ counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of
`any such excluded persons.
`Numerosity: On information and belief, tens of thousands of consumers fall into
`39.
`the definition of the Class. Members of the Class can be identified through Defendants’ records,
`discovery, and other third-party sources.
`Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact
`40.
`common to Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s claims, and those questions predominate over any
`questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class
`include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:
`a.
`Whether Double Down Casino games are “gambling” as defined by RCW
`9.46.0237;
`Whether Defendants are the proprietors for whose benefit the online
`casino games are played;
`Whether Plaintiffs and each member of the Class lost money or anything
`of value by gambling;
`Whether Defendants violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act,
`RCW 19.86.010, et seq.; and
`Whether Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their
`conduct.
`Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of other members of the
`41.
`Class in that Plaintiffs’ and the members of the Class sustained damages arising out of
`Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`Adequate Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and
`42.
`protect the interests of the Class and have retained counsel competent and experienced in
`complex litigation and class actions. Plaintiffs’ claims are representative of the claims of the
`other members of the Class, as Plaintiffs and each member of the Class lost money playing
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`EDELSON PC
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 • Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ games of chance. Plaintiffs also have no interests antagonistic to those of the Class,
`and Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed
`to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class and have the financial resources to do
`so. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any interest adverse to the Class.
`Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for
`43.
`certification because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
`the Class as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure
`compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Class and making final injunctive
`relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole. Defendants’ policies that Plaintiffs
`challenges apply and affect members of the Class uniformly, and Plaintiffs’ challenge of these
`policies hinges on Defendants’ conduct with respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law
`applicable only to Plaintiffs. The factual and legal bases of Defendants’ liability to Plaintiffs and
`to the other members of the Class are the same.
`Superiority: This case is also appropriate for certification because class
`44.
`proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
`this controversy. The harm suffered by the individual members of the Class is likely to have been
`relatively small compared to the burden and expense of prosecuting individual actions to redress
`Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Absent a class action, it would be difficult if not impossible for
`the individual members of the Class to obtain effective relief from Defendants. Even if members
`of the Class themselves could sustain such individual litigation, it would not be preferable to a
`class action because individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties and
`the Court and require duplicative consideration of the legal and factual issues presented. By
`contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of
`single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single Court.
`Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered and uniformity of decisions will be
`ensured.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`EDELSON PC
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 • Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`
`45.
`Plaintiffs reserve 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 Plaintiffs and the Class)
`46.
`Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`47.
`Plaintiffs, members of the Class, and Defendants are all “persons” as defined by
`RCW 9.46.0289.
`48.
`The state of Washington’s “Recovery of money lost at gambling” statute, RCW
`4.24.070, provides that “all persons losing money or anything of value at or on any illegal
`gambling games shall have a cause of action to recover from the dealer or player winning, or
`from the proprietor for whose benefit such game was played or dealt, or such money or things of
`value won, the amount of the money or the value of the thing so lost.”
`49.
`“Gambling,” defined by RCW 9.46.0237, “means staking or risking something of
`value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person's
`control or influence.”
`50.
`Defendants’ “chips” sold for use at the Double Down Casino are “thing[s] of
`value” under RCW § 9.46.0285.
`51.
`Double Down Casino games are illegal gambling games because they are online
`games at which players wager things of value (the chips) and by an element of chance (e.g., by
`spinning an online slot machine) are able to obtain additional entertainment and extend gameplay
`(by winning additional chips).
`52.
`Defendants Double Down and IGT are the proprietors for whose benefit the
`online gambling games are played because they operate the Double Down Casino games and/or
`derive profit from their operation.
`53.
`As such, Plaintiffs and the Class gambled when they purchased chips to wager at
`Double Down Casino. Plaintiffs and each member of the Class staked money, in the form of
`chips purchased with money, at Defendants’ games of chance (e.g., Double Down Casino slot
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`EDELSON PC
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 • Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 249 Filed 04/26/21 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`
`machines and other games of chance) for the chance of winning additional things of value (e.g.,
`chips that extend gameplay without additional charge).
`54.
`In addition, Double Down Casino games are not “pinball machine[s] or similar
`mechanical amusement device[s]” as contemplated by the statute because:
`a.
`the games are electronic rather than mechanical;
`b.
`the games confer replays but they are recorded and can be redeemed on separate
`occasions (i.e., they are not “immediate and unrecorded”); and
`c.
`the games contain electronic mechanisms that vary the chance of winning free
`games or the number of free games which may be won (e.g., the games allow for different wager
`amounts).
`55.
`RCW 9.46.0285 states that a “‘Thing of value,’ as used in this chapter, means any
`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.”
`56.
`The “chips” Plaintiffs and the Class had the chance of winning in Double Down
`Casino games are “thing[s] of value” under Washington law because they are credits that involve
`the extension of entertainment and a privilege of playing a game without charge.
`57.
`Double Down Casino games are “Contest[s] of chance,” as defined by RCW
`9.46.0225, because they are “contest[s], game[s], gaming scheme[s], or gaming device[s] in
`which the outcome[s] depend[] in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding
`that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein.” Defendants’ games are programmed to
`have outcomes that are determined entirely upon chance and a contestant’s skill does not affect
`the outcomes.
`58.
`RCW 9.46.0201 defines “Amusement game[s]” as games where “The outcome
`depends in a material degree upon the skill of the contestant,” amongst other requirements.
`Double Down Casino ga

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket