`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00214-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/27/22 Page 1 of 38
`
`
`The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TONDA FERRANDO and DEX MARZANO,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`Case No. 22-cv-214-RSL
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`AGREEMENT
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`
`June 27, 2022
`
`v.
`
`ZYNGA INC., a Delaware corporation.
`Defendant.
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 22-CV-214-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 2:22-cv-00214-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/27/22 Page 2 of 38
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2
`A. Relevant Social Casino Litigation History (2015-Present) ................................ 2
`1.
`Proposed Class Counsel’s 2015 Social Casino Lawsuits ............................... 2
`2. The Ninth Circuit Reverses the Kater Dismissal in 2018 .............................. 2
`3. Litigation Efforts in the Related Cases ........................................................... 3
`4. Litigation-Adjacent Efforts in the Related Cases ........................................... 4
`5.
`Settlements in the Related Cases .................................................................... 4
`B. Plaintiffs’ Allegations and the Subsequent Arms-Length Mediation ............... 5
`THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT .......................................................... 6
`A. Settlement Class Definition ................................................................................... 6
`B. Monetary Benefits ................................................................................................. 7
`C. Prospective Relief .................................................................................................. 8
`D. Release .................................................................................................................... 8
`E. Class Notice ............................................................................................................ 8
`F.
`Incentive Award Requests .................................................................................... 8
`G. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Requests .............................................................. 8
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 9
`I. The Proposed Class Should Be Certified. ............................................................................... 9
`A. The Proposed Class Meets the Requirements of Rule 23. ............................... 10
`1. The Proposed Settlement Class Is Sufficiently Numerous. .......................... 10
`2.
`Settlement Class Members Share Common Questions of Law
`and Fact. ....................................................................................................... 10
`3.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims are Typical of Settlement Class Members’ Claims. ........ 12
`4. The Class Representatives and Proposed Class Counsel Adequately
`Represent the Settlement Class. ................................................................... 12
`B. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). .................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 22-CV-214-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 2:22-cv-00214-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/27/22 Page 3 of 38
`
`
`
`
`1. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate. ..................................... 15
`2. A Class Action Is the Superior Method of Resolving the Controversy. ...... 16
`II. The Proposed Settlement Merits Preliminary Approval. ............................................ 17
`
`A. The Class Representatives and Proposed Class Counsel Have
`Adequately Represented the Settlement Class. ................................................. 19
`B. The Settlement Was Reached as a Result of Arm’s-Length Negotiations
`Between the Parties. ............................................................................................ 19
`C. The Settlement Treats Class Members Equitably. ........................................... 21
`D. The Relief Secured for the Settlement Class Is Adequate. .............................. 22
`
`1.
`The Cost, Risk, and Delay of Further Litigation, Compared to the
`Settlement’s Benefits, Favor Approval. .................................................... 23
`
`The Method of Processing Claims and Distributing Relief to the
`Settlement Class Members is Effective and Supports Preliminary
`Approval. ................................................................................................... 25
`3.
`The Terms of the Requested Attorneys’ Fees are Reasonable. ................ 26
`III. The Court Should Approve the Proposed Notice Plan. ............................................. 27
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 29
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 22-CV-214-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 2:22-cv-00214-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/27/22 Page 4 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`United States Supreme Court Cases:
`
`Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor,
`
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) ...................................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.,
`
`563 U.S. 804 (2014) .......................................................................................................... 15
`
`Gen. Tel. Co. of the SW v. Falcon,
`
`457 U.S. 147 (1982) .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
`
`577 U.S. 442 (2016) .................................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) .................................................................................................... 11, 13
`
`
`United States Circuit Court of Appeals Cases:
`
`Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc.,
`
`731 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`Bateman v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc.,
`
`623 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 9
`
`Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`
`844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................. 9
`
`Churchill Vill. v. Gen. Elec.,
`
`361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................. 18, 19, 22
`
`Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle,
`
`955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................... 18
`
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`
`657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................. 13
`
`Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell,
`
`688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................... 11
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ......................................................................... 11, 12, 13, 15
`
`
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 22-CV-214-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 2:22-cv-00214-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/27/22 Page 5 of 38
`
`
`
`
`In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab.,
`
`654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................... 18, 20
`
`In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.,
`926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................. 10
`
`
`In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig.,
`
`47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................... 19
`
`Kater v. Churchill Downs,
`
`886 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`Kim v. Allison,
`
`8 F.4th 1170 (9th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of San Francisco,
`
`688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ....................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`Parra v. Bashas’, Inc.,
`
`536 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp.,
`
`563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................... 19, 24
`
`Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc.,
`
`835 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................... 15
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`
`327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................. 18
`
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................... 20
`
`Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
`
`617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................... 12, 17
`
`United States District Court Cases:
`
`Ali v. Menzies Aviation, Inc.,
`
`No. 16-cv-00262-RSL, 2016 WL 4611542 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 6, 2016) ................... 10, 12
`
`Bennett v. SimplexGrinnell LP,
`
`No. 11-cv-01854-JST, 2015 WL 1849543 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2015) .............................. 22
`
`Benson v. DoubleDown,
`
`No. 18-cv-00525 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 9, 2018) ..................................................................... 3
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 22-CV-214-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 2:22-cv-00214-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/27/22 Page 6 of 38
`
`
`
`
`Bess v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC,
`
`334 F.R.D. 432 (W.D. Wash. 2020) .................................................................................. 16
`
`Betorina v. Randstad US, L.P.,
`No. 15-cv-03646-EMC, 2017 WL 1278758 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2017) ............................. 23
`
`
`Dupee v. Playtika Santa Monica, et al.,
`
`No. 15-cv-01021 (N.D. Ohio May 21, 2015) ...................................................................... 2
`
`Geier v. m-Qube, Inc.,
`
`No. 13-cv-354, 2016 WL 3458345 (W.D. Wash. June 24, 2016) ....................................... 9
`
`Gragg v. Orange CAB Co., Inc.,
`
`No. 12-cv-0576-RSL, 2017 WL 785170 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 1, 2017) .............................. 20
`
`Helde v. Knight Transportation, Inc.,
`
`No. 12-cv-00904-RSL (W.D. Wash. May 24, 2017) ........................................................ 20
`
`Ikuseghan v. Multicare Health Sys.,
`
`No. 14-cv-05539-BHS, 2016 WL 3976569 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2016) .................. 19, 24
`
`In re Apple Inc. App Store Simulated Casino Style Games Litig.,
`
`No. 21-md-2985-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2021) ......................................................... 5, 14
`
`In re Facebook Simulated Casino-Style Games Litig.,
`
`No. 21-cv-2777-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2021) .............................................................. 14
`
`In re Google Play Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litig.,
`
`No. 21-md-3001-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2021) ............................................................. 14
`
`In re Wells Fargo & Co. S’holder Derivative Litig.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 508 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................................... 22
`
`
`Jama v. GCA Services Group, Inc., et al.,
`
`No. 16-cv-0331-RSL, 2017 WL 4758722 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 20, 2017) ..................... 10, 14
`
`Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc.,
`
`No. 15-cv-00612-RSL, 2015 WL 9839755 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 19, 2015) .......................... 2
`
`Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc.,
`
`No. 15-cv-00612-RSL, 2021 WL 511203 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2021) .............. 10, 14, 26
`
`
`Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc.,
`
`No. 15-cv-00612-RSL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 17, 2015) .......................................................... 2
`
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 22-CV-214-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 2:22-cv-00214-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/27/22 Page 7 of 38
`
`
`
`
`Kelley v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`251 F.R.D. 544 (W.D. Wash. 2008) .................................................................................. 17
`
`Linehan v. AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc.,
`
`No. 15-cv-1012-JCC, 2017 WL 3724819 (W.D. Wash. June 1, 2017) ....................... 25, 27
`
`Mason v. Mach. Zone, Inc.,
`
`No. 15-cv-01107 (D. Md. Apr. 17, 2015) ........................................................................... 2
`
`Phillips v. Double Down Interactive LLC,
`
`No. 15-cv-04301 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2015) .......................................................................... 2
`
`Reed v. Scientific Games Corp.,
`
`No. 18-cv-00565 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 19, 2022) .................................................................. 10
`
`Reed v. Scientific Games Corp.,
`
`No. 18-cv-00565-RSL (W.D. Wash Apr. 17, 2018) ........................................................... 3
`
`Reichert v. Keefe Commissary Network, LLC,
`
`331 F.R.D. 541 (W.D. Wash. 2019) ............................................................................ 15, 16
`
`Relente v. Viator, Inc.,
`
`No. 12-cv-05868-JD, 2015 WL 2089178 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2015) ................................. 17
`
`Rinky Dink, Inc. v. World Bus. Lenders, LLC,
`
`No. 14-cv-0268-JCC, 2016 WL 4052588 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2016) ................. 18, 24, 25
`
`Ristic v. Mach. Zone, Inc.,
`
`No. 15-cv-08996 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2015) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Scott v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
`
`No. 11-cv-1422-JCC, 2013 WL 12251170 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 7, 2013) ............................ 20
`
`Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.,
`
`No. 16-cv-1211-WBS-AC, 2019 WL 358517 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2019) .......................... 17
`
`Tavenner v. Talon Grp.,
`
`No. 09-cv-1370 RSL, 2012 WL 1022814 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 26, 2012) .......................... 11
`
`Taylor v. Universal Auto Grp. I, Inc.,
`
`No. 13-cv-5245-KLS, 2014 WL 6654270 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 24, 2014) ................... 16, 17
`
`Wilson v. High 5,
`
`No. 18-cv-05275 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 6, 2018) ..................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 22-CV-214-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 2:22-cv-00214-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/27/22 Page 8 of 38
`
`
`
`
`Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc.,
`
`No. 18-cv-5276-RSL, 2021 WL 512229 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2021) ................ 10, 14, 27
`
`
`Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc.,
`
`No. 18-cv-5276-RSL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 6, 2018) .............................................................. 3
`
`Wilson v. Maxim Healthcare Servs., Inc.,
`
`No. 14-cv-789-RSL, 2017 WL 2988289 (W.D. Wash. June 20, 2017) ............................ 18
`
`Wilson v. Playtika Ltd.,
`
`No. 18-cv-5277-RSL, 2021 WL 512230 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2021) ................ 10, 14, 27
`
`Wilson v. Playtika Ltd.,
`
`No. 18-cv-5277-RSL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 6, 2018) .............................................................. 3
`
`Miscellaneous Authority:
`
` NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS
`§ 4:49 (5th ed.) .................................................................................................................. 15
`
` 2
`
`
`
` 4
`
` NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS
`§ 13:10 (5th ed.) .......................................................................................................... 17, 18
`
` NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS
`§ 13:53 (5th ed.) ................................................................................................................ 25
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
` 5
`
` NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS
`§ 15:83 (5th ed.) ................................................................................................................ 27
`
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`H.B. 2720,
`
`66th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2020) .................................................................................. 23
`
`Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS
`
`§ 11:53 (4th ed. 2002) ........................................................................................................ 29
`
`MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (Fourth)
`
`§ 21.633 (2004) .................................................................................................................... 9
`
`RCW § 4.24.070 .............................................................................................................................. 5
`
`RCW § 19.86.010 ........................................................................................................................ 5, 6
`
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 22-CV-214-RSL
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`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 2:22-cv-00214-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/27/22 Page 9 of 38
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This is the fifth settlement reached in a seven-year-old cluster of litigation in this District
`
`alleging that social casino apps constitute illegal gambling. It is the product of a full-day, in-
`person mediation before the Honorable Layn R. Phillips (Ret.) of Phillips ADR. The settlement
`provides for a non-reversionary, common-fund cash recovery of twelve million dollars
`($12,000,000.00), equaling approximately twenty-five percent (25%) of the Class’s alleged
`damages. That puts the settlement on par not only with Reed v. Scientific Games (No. 18-cv-565,
`preliminary approval granted January 19, 2022), but also with Wilson v. Playtika (No. 18-cv-
`5277, final approval granted February 11, 2021), in which Defendant Zynga’s lead counsel here
`also served as a Playtika’s lead counsel. In other words, while the Parties here were able to reach
`the proposed settlement without the need for motion practice, that is a direct result of seven years
`of litigation history before this Court and years of litigation with Defendant’s counsel. Moreover,
`the excellent results delivered here equal those of the settlements reached in aggressively
`litigated cases.
`
`If this settlement is approved, participating Class Members—just as in the Reed v.
`Scientific Games and Wilson v. Playtika settlements—stand to recover substantial portions of
`their alleged damages: between 20% (on the low end) to more than 60% (at the high end), based
`on Class Counsel’s experience in those prior settlements. Particularly in the current economic
`climate, these recoveries will be life-changing for many Class Members. And the settlement
`further requires Zynga to implement meaningful prospective relief, including by maintaining and
`enforcing a self-exclusion policy. Because this settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, the
`Court should not hesitate to approve it.
`Consequently, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court (i) certify the proposed
`Settlement Class; (ii) grant preliminary approval of the Settlement; (iii) appoint Tonda Ferrando
`and Dex Marzano as Class Representatives; (iv) appoint Jay Edelson, Rafey S. Balabanian, 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.
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 22-CV-214-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 2:22-cv-00214-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/27/22 Page 10 of 38
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`Relevant Social Casino Litigation History (2015-Present)
`This case is part of a long-running series of lawsuits against social casino companies that
`began in 2015. Because the proposed settlement before the Court is ultimately the result of this
`now seven-year-long (and ongoing) effort, a brief history of the relevant social casino litigation
`landscape follows.
`1.
`Proposed Class Counsel’s 2015 Social Casino Lawsuits
`Between April and October of 2015, the undersigned counsel (“Proposed Class Counsel”)
`filed five class action lawsuits against social casino companies, in four different courts across the
`country, alleging violations of state gambling laws. See Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc., No. 15-
`cv-612 (W.D. Wash Apr. 17, 2015); Dupee v. Playtika Santa Monica, et al., No. 15-cv-01021
`(N.D. Ohio May 21, 2015); Mason v. Mach. Zone, Inc., No. 15-cv-01107 (D. Md. Apr. 17,
`2015); Phillips v. Double Down Interactive LLC, No. 15-cv-04301 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2015);
`Ristic v. Mach. Zone, Inc., No. 15-cv-08996 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2015). The theory of liability in
`each case was similar: social casinos constitute illegal gambling and the companies purveying
`these games must return their ill-gotten gains to users. Each federal district court initially
`presented with this theory rejected it. See, e.g., Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc., No. 15-cv-612,
`2015 WL 9839755, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 19, 2015), rev’d, 886 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2018)
`(District Court concluded that “Big Fish Casino does not award something of value satisfying the
`requisite prize element, and therefore the game is not ‘illegal gambling’ under Washington
`law.”).
`
`2.
`The Ninth Circuit Reverses the Kater Dismissal in 2018
`In January 2016, Proposed Class Counsel appealed the dismissal order in Kater. See
`
`Kater, Dkt. #43. Two years later, after merits briefing and oral argument, the Ninth Circuit
`reversed:
`
`In this appeal, we consider whether the virtual game platform “Big
`Fish Casino” constitutes illegal gambling under Washington law.
`Defendant–Appellee Churchill Downs, the game’s owner and
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 22-CV-214-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 2:22-cv-00214-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/27/22 Page 11 of 38
`
`
`
`operator, has made millions of dollars off of Big Fish Casino.
`However, despite collecting millions in revenue, Churchill Downs,
`like Captain Renault in Casablanca, purports to be shocked—
`shocked!—to find that Big Fish Casino could constitute illegal
`gambling. We are not. We therefore reverse the district court and
`hold that because Big Fish Casino’s virtual chips are a “thing of
`value,” Big Fish Casino constitutes illegal gambling under
`Washington law.
`
`
`Kater, 886 F.3d at 785. In that opinion, the Ninth Circuit rejected a variety of arguments that had
`been lodged by defendants claiming that social casinos are not gambling in Washington. For
`example, the Court rejected arguments that social casinos “do not extend gameplay, but only
`enhance it,” id. at 787, and that the Washington State Gambling Commission had concluded that
`social casinos are not gambling, id. at 788.
`3.
`Litigation Efforts in the Related Cases
`Soon after remand in Kater, in the spring of 2018, Proposed Class Counsel filed five
`
`additional class action lawsuits—Fife v. Scientific Games, Wilson v. Playtika, Benson v.
`DoubleDown, Wilson v. High 5, and Wilson v. Huuuge. Each alleged that a major social casino
`company’s online slot machines constitute unlawful gambling under Washington’s gambling
`laws. See generally Scientific Games, No. 18-cv-00565, Dkt. #1 (Apr. 17, 2018); Playtika, No.
`18-cv-05277, Dkt. #1 (Apr. 6, 2018); DoubleDown, No. 18-cv-00525, Dkt. #1 (Apr. 9, 2018);
`High 5, No. 18-cv-05275, Dkt. #1 (Apr. 6, 2018); Huuuge, No. 18-cv-05276, Dkt. #1 (Apr. 6,
`2018).
`Over the next two years, Class Counsel fended off a barrage of motions and other
`
`litigation gambits aimed at dismissing or otherwise gutting the pending lawsuits. These included
`motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Playtika, Dkt. #40; Kater, Dkt. #202),
`motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Scientific Games, Dkt. #59;
`DoubleDown, Dkt. #138), motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Playtika, Dkt. #40;
`Scientific Games, Dkt. #28; High 5, Dkt. #34; DoubleDown, Dkt. #289), motions to certify
`questions to the Washington Supreme Court (Playtika, Dkt. #99; High 5, Dkt. #99; DoubleDown,
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 22-CV-214-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 2:22-cv-00214-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/27/22 Page 12 of 38
`
`
`
`Dkt. #103), motions to compel arbitration (Kater, Dkt. #60; Kater, Dkt. #100; Kater, Dkt. #205;
`Scientific Games, Dkt. #82; DoubleDown, Dkt. #38; Huuuge, Dkt. #31), a motion to strike class
`claims (DoubleDown, Dkt. #128), interlocutory appeals of denials of motions to compel
`(Scientific Games, Dkt. #136; DoubleDown, Dkts. #82-83; Huuuge, Dkt. #47), and repeated
`efforts to have users click post-litigation pop-up arbitration clauses waiving their rights in these
`cases (Kater; Scientific Games; DoubleDown). Each of these gambits failed.
`
`In the meantime, Proposed Class Counsel pursued offensive motion practice and
`discovery, ultimately prevailing in a slate of discovery disputes, see, e.g., Kater, Dkt. #191;
`DoubleDown, Dkts. #366-367, obtaining data from defendants and third-party platforms Apple,
`Google, Facebook, and Amazon, see, e.g., Kater, Dkt. #250; DoubleDown, Dkts. #366-367;
`High 5, Dkt. #129, and certifying a class, see High 5, Dkt. #170.
`4. Litigation-Adjacent Efforts in the Related Cases
`Beyond the traditional litigation work necessitated by these cases, Proposed Class
`
`Counsel undertook (and continue to undertake) all manner of litigation-adjacent work to ward off
`various social casino company defendants’ efforts to dispose of these lawsuits. These efforts
`include (i) opposing a “Petition for Declaratory Order” before the Washington State Gambling
`Commission, which asked the gambling commission to declare that social casinos “do not
`constitute gambling within the meaning of the Washington Gambling Act, RCW 9.46.0237,” (ii)
`opposing legislation meant to defang Washington’s gambling laws, including by providing in-
`person testimony and meeting with State Senators and Representatives and other officials, and
`(iii) sounding the alarm on social casinos to the general public by helping clients share their
`stories with media outlets across the country, such as PBS NewsHour and NBC News. See
`Declaration of Todd Logan (“Logan Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-7.
`5. Settlements in the Related Cases
`As a result of these efforts, between 2020 and 2021, Proposed Class Counsel achieved
`
`landmark settlements in four of the pending cases: Kater v. Big Fish ($155 million), Wilson v.
`Playtika ($37 million), Reed v. Scientific Games ($24.5 million), and Wilson v. Huuuge ($6.5
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 22-CV-214-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 2:22-cv-00214-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/27/22 Page 13 of 38
`
`
`
`million). See Kater, Dkt. #289 (granting final approval); Playtika, Dkt. #164 (granting final
`approval); Scientific Games, Dkt. #166 (granting preliminary approval); Huuuge, Dkt. #140
`(granting final approval). These are the first ever class action settlements resolving claims that
`social casinos constitute unlawful gambling, and undoubtedly served as catalysts for a
`nationwide wave of dozens of cases related to social casinos, culminating in the creation of
`multi-district litigation in the Northern District of California, in which Proposed Class Counsel
`here have been appointed by Judge Davila as Interim Lead Counsel (Rafey S. Balabanian) and
`Law and Briefing Counsel (Todd Logan). See, e.g., In re: Apple Inc. App Store Simulated
`Casino-Style Games Litig., No. 5:21-md-2985-EJD, Dkt. #68 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2021).
`B.
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations and the Subsequent Arms-Length Mediation
`On February 24, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this case alleging that Defendant’s social casinos,
`including “Hit It Rich!,” “Black Diamond Casino,” “Wizard of Oz Slots,” “Game of Thrones
`Slots,” and “Willy Wonka Slots” (individually, “Application,” and together, the “Applications”),
`constitute unlawful gambling under Washington’s gambling laws. See Dkt. #1. Plaintiffs claimed
`that the “social casino” business model, which drives players to pay real money for virtual casino
`chips, is illegal under Washington law because its products are online gambling games of
`chance. See id. ¶¶ 30, 45. More specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the Applications entice users
`with an initial allotment of free coins and/or chips to wager on an array of Vegas-style slots, see
`id. ¶ 9, the outcomes of which are “dependent entirely upon chance,” id. ¶ 37. They alleged that
`these initial free chips are “quickly los[t]” in the course of gameplay, id. ¶ 10, and that—once
`exhausted—users purchase more chips with real money (in packages ranging from $2.99 to
`$99.99 each) if they wish to extend gameplay, id. ¶ 11.
`Because these virtual chips “extend gameplay,” id. ¶ 30, Plaintiffs alleged that these
`virtual chips are “things of value” under Washington’s gambling laws, and that under RCW
`§ 4.24.070 (the “Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act” or “RMLGA”), users are entitled to
`recoup their losses, see id. ¶¶ 25-38. Plaintiffs further alleged that these actions constituted
`
`PLS.’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`CASE NO. 22-CV-214-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
`2