`
`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