`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 507 Filed 11/11/22 Page 1 of 44
`
`
`The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADRIENNE BENSON and MARY
`SIMONSON, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`Case No. 18-cv-525-RSL
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`AGREEMENT
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`
`November 11, 2022
`
`DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC, a
`Washington limited liability company,
`INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a
`Nevada corporation, and IGT, a Nevada
`corporation,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 18-CV-525-RSL
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`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 507 Filed 11/11/22 Page 2 of 44
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2
`I. Plaintiffs’ Allegations .................................................................................................. 2
`II. Relevant Litigation History ....................................................................................... 3
`A. First Motion to Compel Arbitration and Related Appeal .............................. 3
`B.
`Initial Subpoenas and Discovery Requests ....................................................... 3
`C. Defendant’s Pleadings Motions ......................................................................... 4
`D. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Injunction ......... 5
`E. Discovery and Related Motions ......................................................................... 6
`F. Plaintiffs’ Motions for Spoliation Sanctions .................................................... 8
`G. Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion to Seal in Part and Unseal in Part ..................... 8
`III. Litigation-Adjacent Efforts ........................................................................................ 8
`IV. The Parties Reach a Mediated Settlement ................................................................ 8
`THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ........................................................ 10
`I.
`Settlement Class Definition ....................................................................................... 10
`II. Monetary Benefits ..................................................................................................... 10
`III. Prospective Relief ...................................................................................................... 11
`IV. Release ........................................................................................................................ 11
`V. Class Notice ................................................................................................................ 11
`VI.
`Incentive Award Requests ........................................................................................ 12
`VII. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Requests .................................................................. 12
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 12
`I. The Proposed Class Should Be Certified ........................................................................ 12
`A. The Proposed Class Meets the Requirements of Rule 23 ............................. 13
`1. The Proposed Settlement Class Is Sufficiently Numerous. ....................... 14
`
`2.
`Settlement Class Members Share Common Questions of Law and
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 18-CV-525-RSL
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`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 507 Filed 11/11/22 Page 3 of 44
`
`
`
`
`Fact. ........................................................................................................... 14
`3.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims are Typical of Settlement Class Members’ Claims. ..... 15
`
`4. The Class Representatives and Proposed Class Counsel Adequately
`Represent the Settlement Class. ................................................................ 16
`B. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) ................ 18
`1. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate. .................................. 19
`2. A Class Action Is the Superior Method of Resolving the Controversy. ... 20
`II. The Proposed Settlement Merits Preliminary Approval ....................................... 21
`
`A. The Class Representatives and Proposed Class Counsel Have
`Adequately Represented the Settlement Class .................................................. 23
`B. The Settlement Was Reached as a Result of Arm’s-Length Negotiations
`Between the Parties ............................................................................................. 23
`C. The Settlement Treats Class Members Equitably ............................................ 25
`D. The Relief Secured for the Settlement Class Is Adequate ............................... 26
`
`1. The Cost, Risk, and Delay of Further Litigation, Compared to the
`Settlement’s Benefits, Favor Approval. .................................................... 28
`
`2. The Method of Processing Claims and Distributing Relief to the
`Settlement Class Members is Effective and Supports Preliminary
`Approval. ................................................................................................... 30
`The Terms of the Requested Attorneys’ Fees are Reasonable. ................ 31
`
`The Parties’ Stipulation Regarding the Timing of Establishing the
`Settlement Fund is Fair and Reasonable. .................................................. 32
`III. The Court Should Approve the Proposed Notice Plan .......................................... 33
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 35
`
`
`3.
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 18-CV-525-RSL
`
`iii
`
`
`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 507 Filed 11/11/22 Page 4 of 44
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`United States Supreme Court Cases:
`
`Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor,
`
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) .................................................................................................... 12, 13
`
`Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.,
`
`563 U.S. 804 (2014) .......................................................................................................... 19
`
`Gen. Tel. Co. of the SW v. Falcon,
`
`457 U.S. 147 (1982) .......................................................................................................... 16
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
`
`577 U.S. 442 (2016) .................................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) .................................................................................................... 14, 16
`
`
`United States Circuit Court of Appeals Cases:
`
`Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc.,
`
`731 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................. 15
`
`Bateman v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc.,
`
`623 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................. 13
`
`Benson v. Double Down Interactive, LLC,
`
`No. 18-36015 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................. 3
`
`Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`
`844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................... 13
`
`Churchill Vill. v. Gen. Elec.,
`
`361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ....................................................................................... 22, 26
`
`Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle,
`
`955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................... 22
`
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`
`657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................. 17
`
`Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell,
`
`688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 18-CV-525-RSL
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`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 507 Filed 11/11/22 Page 5 of 44
`
`
`
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................... 14, 16, 18
`
`In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab.,
`
`654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................... 22, 24
`
`In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.,
`926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................. 13
`
`
`Kater v. Churchill Downs,
`
`886 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`Kim v. Allison,
`
`8 F.4th 1170 (9th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................................. 22
`
`Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of San Francisco,
`
`688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ............................................................................................. 27
`
`Parra v. Bashas’, Inc.,
`
`536 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 15
`
`Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC,
`
`944 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2019) .......................................................................................... 22
`
`Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp.,
`
`563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................... 23, 28
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`
`327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................. 22
`
`Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc.,
`
`835 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................... 19
`
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................... 24
`
`Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
`
`617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................... 15, 20
`
`United States District Court Cases:
`
`Ali v. Menzies Aviation, Inc.,
`
`No. 16-cv-00262-RSL, 2016 WL 4611542 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 6, 2016) ................... 14, 15
`
`Bennett v. SimplexGrinnell LP,
`
`No. 11-cv-01854-JST, 2015 WL 1849543 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2015) .............................. 27
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 18-CV-525-RSL
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`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 507 Filed 11/11/22 Page 6 of 44
`
`
`
`
`Bess v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC,
`
`334 F.R.D. 432 (W.D. Wash. 2020) .................................................................................. 20
`
`Betorina v. Randstad US, L.P.,
`No. 15-cv-03646-EMC, 2017 WL 1278758 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2017) ............................. 28
`
`
`Ferrando v. Zynga Inc.,
`
`No. 22-cv-214-RSL (W.D. Wash June 27, 2022) .............................................................. 2
`
`Ferrando v. Zynga Inc.,
`
`No. 22-cv-00214-RSL (W.D. Wash. June 28, 2022) ...................................... 14, 18, 30, 33
`
`Geier v. m-Qube, Inc.,
`
`No. 13-cv-354, 2016 WL 3458345 (W.D. Wash. June 24, 2016) ..................................... 13
`
`Gragg v. Orange CAB Co., Inc.,
`
`No. 12-cv-0576-RSL, 2017 WL 785170 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 1, 2017) .............................. 24
`
`Helde v. Knight Transportation, Inc.,
`
`No. 12-cv-00904-RSL (W.D. Wash. May 24, 2017) ........................................................ 23
`
`Ikuseghan v. Multicare Health Sys.,
`
`No. 14-cv-05539-BHS, 2016 WL 3976569 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2016) .................. 29, 30
`
`In re Apple Inc. App Store Simulated Casino Style Games Litig.,
`
`No. 21-md-2985-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2021) ............................................................. 18
`
`In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig.,
`
`No. 21-15758, 2022 WL 4492078 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2022) ....................................... 23, 26
`
`In re Facebook Simulated Casino-Style Games Litig.,
`
`No. 21-cv-2777-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2021) .............................................................. 18
`
`In re Google Play Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litig.,
`
`No. 21-md-3001-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2021) ............................................................. 18
`
`In re Wells Fargo & Co. S’holder Derivative Litig.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 508 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................................... 27
`
`
`Jama v. GCA Services Group, Inc., et al.,
`
`No. 16-cv-0331-RSL, 2017 WL 4758722 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 20, 2017) ..................... 14, 18
`
`Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc.,
`
`No. 15-cv-00612-RSL, 2021 WL 511203 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2021) .............. 14, 17, 31
`
`
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 18-CV-525-RSL
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`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 507 Filed 11/11/22 Page 7 of 44
`
`
`
`
`Kelley v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`251 F.R.D. 544 (W.D. Wash. 2008) .................................................................................. 21
`
`Linehan v. AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc.,
`
`No. 15-cv-1012-JCC, 2017 WL 3724819 (W.D. Wash. June 1, 2017) ....................... 30, 33
`
`Reed v. Scientific Games Corp.,
`
`No. 18-cv-00565 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 19, 2022) ................................................ 14, 18, 30, 33
`
`Reichert v. Keefe Commissary Network, LLC,
`
`331 F.R.D. 541 (W.D. Wash. 2019) ............................................................................ 19, 20
`
`Relente v. Viator, Inc.,
`
`No. 12-cv-05868-JD, 2015 WL 2089178 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2015) ................................. 21
`
`Rinky Dink, Inc. v. World Bus. Lenders, LLC,
`
`No. 14-cv-0268-JCC, 2016 WL 4052588 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2016) ................. 21, 22, 29
`
`Scott v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
`
`No. 11-cv-1422-JCC, 2013 WL 12251170 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 7, 2013) ............................ 24
`
`Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.,
`
`No. 16-cv-1211-WBS-AC, 2019 WL 358517 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2019) .......................... 21
`
`Tavenner v. Talon Grp.,
`
`No. 09-cv-1370 RSL, 2012 WL 1022814 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 26, 2012) .......................... 15
`
`Taylor v. Universal Auto Grp. I, Inc.,
`
`No. 13-cv-5245-KLS, 2014 WL 6654270 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 24, 2014) ................... 19, 20
`
`Wilson v. PTT, LLC,
`
`No. 18-cv-5275-RSL, 2021 WL 211532 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 21, 2021) ....................... 13, 17
`
`Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc.,
`
`No. 18-cv-5276-RSL, 2021 WL 512229 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2021) ................ 13, 17, 31
`
`Wilson v. Maxim Healthcare Servs., Inc.,
`
`No. 14-cv-789-RSL, 2017 WL 2988289 (W.D. Wash. June 20, 2017) ............................ 22
`
`Wilson v. Playtika Ltd.,
`
`No. 18-cv-5277-RSL, 2021 WL 512230 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2021) ................ 13, 17, 31
`
`Miscellaneous Authority:
`
` 2
`
` NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS
`§ 4:49 (5th ed.) .................................................................................................................. 19
`
`
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 18-CV-525-RSL
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`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 507 Filed 11/11/22 Page 8 of 44
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
` NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS
`§ 13:10 (5th ed.) ................................................................................................................ 21
`
` NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS
`§ 13:53 (5th ed.) ................................................................................................................ 30
`
` NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS
`§ 15:83 (5th ed.) ................................................................................................................ 31
`
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`H.B. 2720,
`
`66th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2020) .................................................................................. 28
`
`Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS
`
`§ 11:53 (4th ed. 2002) ........................................................................................................ 34
`
`MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (Fourth)
`
`§ 21.633 (2004) .................................................................................................................. 13
`
`RCW § 4.24.070 .............................................................................................................................. 3
`
`RCW § 19.86.010 ............................................................................................................................ 3
`
`RCW § 9.46.010 ............................................................................................................................ 15
`
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
`
`Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements (Aug. 4, 2022)
`
`http://bit.ly/3A5xiG0 ......................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 18-CV-525-RSL
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`EDELSON PC
`350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312 589 6370 • Fax: 312 589 6378
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
` 5
`
`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 507 Filed 11/11/22 Page 9 of 44
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`After four and a half years of hard-fought litigation—including more than five hundred
`(500) docket entries before this Court, a trip to the Ninth Circuit, skirmishes in state court, battles
`before the Washington State Gambling Commission, a years-long war before the Washington
`Legislature, and exhaustive mediation efforts with Judge Phillips and Niki Mendoza of Phillips
`ADR—the Parties have reached a settlement that, if approved, would completely resolve this
`case.1 Alongside prospective relief, the settlement features a $415 million common fund.2
`It is difficult to overstate what a triumph this proposed settlement is for the proposed
`Settlement Class. The common fund reflects approximately nineteen and a half percent (19.5%)
`of the gross revenues produced by the DoubleDown apps in the eight and a half years since April
`2014 (i.e., during the applicable statute of limitations). It also reflects more than eighty-five
`percent (85%) of DoubleDown’s current market capitalization ($482.65 million, as of October
`23). Based on DoubleDown’s net income of $78.2 million in 2021, the common fund constitutes
`more than five full years of profitability for the DoubleDown apps. Perhaps most importantly,
`participating Settlement Class Members in the highest category of Lifetime Spending Amounts
`will likely recover gross payments in excess of 60% of their alleged losses from April 2014
`through the present, and those in the lowest category will still likely recover gross payments
`exceeding 20% of the same. Particularly in the current economic climate, these recoveries will be
`life-changing for many class members. And in addition to the prospective relief offered here,
`they render approval of the proposed class action settlement more than appropriate here.
`Consequently, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court (i) certify the proposed
`Settlement Class; (ii) grant preliminary approval of the Settlement; (iii) appoint Adrienne Benson
`and Mary Simonson as Class Representatives; (iv) appoint Jay Edelson, Rafey S. Balabanian,
`
`
`See Declaration of Todd Logan (“Logan Decl.”), Ex. 1 (“Class Action Settlement Agreement”).
`1
`Defendants state that that although they do not oppose this motion, they do not necessarily agree with
`2
`characterizations in the motion, including, among other things, (1) discovery regarding purported “targeting” and
`“addicted” gamblers, (2) the notion that Defendants were engaged in gambling activity in violation of Washington
`law, or (3) the strength of Plaintiffs’ claims and the cost of litigation.
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 18-CV-525-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 507 Filed 11/11/22 Page 10 of 44
`
`
`
`Todd Logan, Alexander G. Tievsky, Brandt Silver-Korn, and Amy B. Hausmann as Class
`Counsel; (v) approve the proposed Notice Plan; and (vi) schedule the final approval hearing.
`BACKGROUND
`
`As the Court is aware, this proposed settlement is part of a seven-year-long (and still
`expanding) campaign of lawsuits against social casino companies (and now, the tech-giant
`Platforms who partner with them). Because the Court has previously reviewed and approved five
`of these social casino class action settlements, Plaintiffs need not recap that history here. See,
`e.g., Mot. for Prelim. Approval, Dkt. #23, Ferrando v. Zynga Inc., No. 22-cv-214 (W.D. Wash
`June 27, 2022). While that broader context is certainly relevant to the resolution of this case, this
`motion focuses on the extensive efforts expended specifically in this case.
`I. Plaintiffs’ Allegations
`In April 2018, on the heels of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Kater v. Churchill Downs
`Inc., 886 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2018), Plaintiffs filed this proposed class action lawsuit against
`DoubleDown Interactive, LLC (a social casino game developer headquartered in Seattle,
`Washington) and International Game Technology (a multinational gambling company,
`DoubleDown’s former parent company, and the world’s largest slot machine manufacturer).3
`Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’ social casino games, including their flagship application
`“DoubleDown Casino,” constitute unlawful gambling under Washington’s gambling laws. See
`Dkt. #1. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’ social casino games entice users with an
`initial allotment of free virtual chips to wager on an array of Vegas-style slots, the outcomes of
`which are “based entirely on chance.” Dkt. #249 ¶ 32 (Second Amended Complaint). They
`alleged that these initial free chips are “quickly los[t]” in the course of gameplay, and that—once
`exhausted—users purchase more chips with real money (in packages ranging from $2.99 to
`$99.99) if they wish to continue playing. Id. ¶¶ 28-29.
`
`
`Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to add IGT (a subsidiary of International Game
`3
`Technology) as an additional Defendant. See Dkt. #249.
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 18-CV-525-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 507 Filed 11/11/22 Page 11 of 44
`
`
`
`Because these virtual chips “extend gameplay,” id. ¶ 51, Plaintiffs allege that the chips
`are “things of value” under Washington’s gambling laws, that Defendant’s online social casino
`games therefore violate Washington’s ban on internet gambling, and that users are entitled to
`recoup their alleged losses under RCW § 4.24.070 (the “Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling
`Act” or “RMLGA”). Id. ¶¶ 46-59.
`Plaintiffs further alleged that Defendants’ ownership and operation of these games
`constituted violations of RCW § 19.86.010 (the “Washington Consumer Protection Act” or
`“CPA”), id. ¶¶ 60-71, and common law unjust enrichment. See id. ¶¶ 72-76.
`II. Relevant Litigation History
`Of the five social casino class action settlements proposed Class Counsel has presented to
`this Court, this case was the most heavily litigated by far, as evidenced by the more than five
`hundred (500) docket entries. Some highlights of that litigation activity are summarized below.
`A.
`First Motion to Compel Arbitration and Related Appeal
`In August 2018, Defendants moved to compel arbitration and to stay the action, arguing
`that Plaintiffs were on inquiry notice of the arbitration provision in DoubleDown Casino’s Terms
`of Use. See generally Dkt. #44. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, see Dkt. #49, and the Court denied
`it in November 2018, see Dkt. #57. Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiffs did not agree to
`be bound by the Terms of Use. Id. at 13.
`Defendants appealed that order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
`Circuit, Dkt. #61, and this Court agreed to stay the case pending resolution of that appeal, see
`Dkt. #77. After full briefing before the Ninth Circuit, including supplemental briefs requested by
`the court, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Defendants’ motion to compel in January
`2020. See Dkt. #84; see also generally Benson v. Double Down Interactive, LLC, No. 18-36015
`(9th Cir.).
`B.
`Initial Subpoenas and Discovery Requests
`After the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Plaintiffs served subpoenas on Apple Inc., Facebook,
`Inc., and Google LLC (the “Platforms”) in April 2020, seeking transaction data for purchases of
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 18-CV-525-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 507 Filed 11/11/22 Page 12 of 44
`
`
`
`virtual chips in DoubleDown’s four social casino applications: DoubleDown Casino,
`DoubleDown Fort Knox, DoubleDown Classic, and Ellen’s Road to Riches (the “Applications”).
`See Dkt. #92. Plaintiffs served a second set of subpoenas on the Platforms in June 2020. See Dkt.
`#109. DoubleDown filed a Motion for Protective Order regarding each set of subpoenas. See
`Dkts. #92, #109. Around the same time, Plaintiffs also served DoubleDown with Requests for
`Production, and in July 2020, Plaintiffs moved to compel DoubleDown to produce transaction
`data for virtual chip purchases in the four Applications. Dkt. #118.
`After full briefing on both Motions for Protective Order and the Motion to Compel, the
`Court entered an order in August 2020 allowing Plaintiffs to seek transaction data (from both
`DoubleDown and the Platforms) only for Washington-based users and only for the DoubleDown
`Casino application, and quashing Plaintiffs’ second set of subpoenas to the Platforms. See Dkt.
`#126.4
`
`C.
`Defendants’ Pleadings Motions
`In June 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Certify Questions to the Washington Supreme
`Court, arguing that Plaintiffs’ RMLGA and CPA claims involved novel state-law questions that
`should be resolved by the state’s highest court. Dkt. #103. After full briefing, the Court denied
`the motion in August 2020, finding that “[w]hile no court applying Washington law had
`addressed casino-gaming apps before Kater, Double Down has not shown that these facts present
`significantly ‘new’ or ‘substantial’ questions of statutory interpretation.” Dkt. #127 at 3.
`Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. #133, the Parties submitted additional
`briefing, and the Court denied it in January 2021, Dkt. #156.
`In August 2020, two days after the Court denied the Motion to Certify Questions,
`Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Nationwide Class Allegations, arguing that conflicts of law
`between Washington’s and other states’ gambling laws prohibited certification of a nationwide
`
`
`DoubleDown subsequently produced in discovery the transaction data for all United States users in the
`4
`DoubleDown Casino application. See Dkt. #298 at 2 (showing FRE 1006 summary of that data). As set forth below,
`Plaintiffs will seek additional transaction data from DoubleDown and the Platform Providers, regarding all four at-
`issue Applications, in order to effect the Notice Plan.
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 18-CV-525-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 507 Filed 11/11/22 Page 13 of 44
`
`
`
`class. Dkt. #128. After full briefing, the Court denied the motion in March 2021, finding that
`“neither constitutional considerations nor the applicable choice-of-law rules precludes the
`application of Washington law to the claims asserted in this litigation, regardless where the
`putative class members reside.” Dkt. #209 at 12. DoubleDown moved to certify this order for
`interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), Dkt. #257, but the Court denied the
`motion after full briefing, Dkt. #338.
`In September 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
`and Motion to Abstain, arguing that a host of abstention doctrines prevented the Court from
`exercising jurisdiction and that it should allow the Washington state courts the opportunity to
`interpret its state gambling laws. Dkt. #138. After full briefing, the Court denied the motion in
`March 2021, finding that “abstention under Burford, Pullman, and/or Thibodaux is not
`warranted.” Dkt. #210 at 3. Defendants moved to certify this order for interlocutory appeal, Dkt.
`#230, but later withdrew the motion, Dkt. #248.
`After the Parties stipulated to an amendment of the pleadings, Plaintiffs filed a Second
`Amended Complaint in April 2021 that added IGT (a subsidiary of International Game
`Technology) as a defendant. Dkt. #249. In May 2021, IGT filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule
`12(b)(6). Dkt. #289. After full briefing, that motion remained pending when the case settled and
`was stayed.
`In May 2021, DoubleDown filed a Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration, arguing that
`Plaintiffs Benson and Simonson testified at deposition that they had actual notice of
`DoubleDown’s terms of use. Dkt. #264. After full briefing, that motion remained pending when
`the case settled.
`D.
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Injunction
`In February 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification and for Preliminary
`