There are several class action lawsuits filed against Playtika, Ltd and Playtika Santa Monica (which is based in USA) - owners of Caesars Casino, Slotomania, WSOP, Bingo Blitz, and House of Fun. We will give you the highlights and some links so you can read further.
This April 6, 2018 lawsuit is against Caesars Casino online and is still open - i.e. not settled.
Wilson v. Playtika, Ltd et al
Filed April 6, 2018
The plaintiff, Sean Wilson, filed this lawsuit in the state of Washington in the United States, a state where online gambling is prohibited.
His lawsuit claims that Playtika, Ltd and Caesars Interactive Entertainment, LLC’s online slot machine games are illegal under Washington state law.
Back to the lawsuit details: The case explains that Playtika's games of chance offer the user an initial free bundle of 20,000 coins (a starter pack) that can be used to place bets.
Once these coins are gone, which is very quickly, the lawsuit says, users can then buy more coins via in-app micro-transactions —7,500 coins for $2, or 320,000 coins for $50, for instance, depending on which version of the gaming app was downloaded.
Players cannot continue to play without coins. Free coins are given periodically - from one hour to three hours depending on which version was downloaded and user settings and purchase history. Players are inundated with screens to purchase coins. They can either exit the application, or wait for free coins to be offered or buy coins with a credit or debit card.
Players cannot continue to play without coins. Free coins are given periodically - from one hour to three hours depending on which version was downloaded and user settings and purchase history. Players are inundated with screens to purchase coins. They can either exit the application, or wait for free coins to be offered or buy coins with a credit or debit card.
At the heart of the lawsuit is Sean Wilson's argument that Playtika's games of chance are disguised as free-to-play games that continuously prompt users to make in-app micro-transaction purchases which they must do to continue to play - if they don't want to wait for timed free credits to be awarded.
In 2014, Playtika generated almost $280 million in revenue. In 2017 Playtika made more than $3.8 billion, primarily from coin purchases.
According to the complaint, members of this class action lawsuit have legal recourse because the statute in the state of Washington stipulates that any “money lost at gambling” can be recovered for “all persons losing money or anything of value at or on any illegal gambling games" for the amount of money lost or the value of the thing that was lost.
It is not clear if members of the class action have to be Washington residents.
Micro-transactions have taken a 'free-to-play player' and changed them into a 'paying player.' Those purchases means this is gambling.
According to one study, those who purchase virtual credits on free to play games spend an average of $78 per week.
If 5 out of every 100 players make a purchase for $50, a game developer can reap very high revenues for their free to play game.
You can read more about this lawsuit here:
*****************************************
This is a separate article highlighting Sean Wilson's lawsuit:
https://considertheconsumer.com/consumer-class-actions/playtika-class-action-lawsuit
*****************************************
Playtika was named as one of four online casinos in this class action lawsuit and you can read that article here:
*****************************************
Playtika was named as one of four online casinos in this class action lawsuit and you can read that article here:
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/four-gaming-companies-hit-online-gambling-lawsuits-free-play-casino-games/
*****************************************
This lawsuit might shock you when you read the the link provided below. The case is settled and Ohio resident Robert Dupee (PLAINTIFF) lost against Playtika (DEFENDANTS). The lawsuit specifically says: to include any interested parties.
There is no reason why Robert Dupee should have lost this lawsuit based on 'semantics.'
Because several of its games are currently up for sale, Playtika hides poor performing games behind their numerous Playtika corporations. Even though Playtika SM wasn't specifically named in this lawsuit, Playtika used the art of misdirection to point out that they shouldn't be sued because they aren't named on the suit.
There are 11 Playtika subsidiaries so when challenged about which Playtika corporation owns a game (especially poor performers), Playtika can shift the poor performer over to another Playtika and then inform interest parties that (name of game) isn't owned and operated by Playtika SM corporation.
That is never more true when every branch of Playtika reaps profits from game income which then gets put in with their operating expenses for another year.
Playtika has been revamping all their subsidiaries since before Caesars was sold. Slotomania is still up for sale with no takers.
Whatever Playtika corporation is the most solvent at the moment when a buyer looks at Slotomania, is the corporation that Slotomania can be shifted to.
To say that Playtika SM is not responsible for games listed under Playtika Ltd is just ridiculous.
When they count up their money, I am sure that Ltd shares revenue with SM for operating expenses.
Each Playtika Corporation owns a chunk of each game but they broke it down so that each subsidiary is only responsible for certain aspects of each game - graphics, sound, 3D, maintenance of slots, - and not the whole game application.
The issue is whether Plaintiff Dupee has shown that Defendants' Playtika contact in Ohio are sufficient to satisfy Ohio's long-arm statute.
A long arm statute means a company can operate IN a state but they are physically located in a different place.
Therefore Playtika is operating IN Ohio but is not physically located IN Ohio.
Plaintiff Dupee asserts:
Playtika's response:
Defendants point out the first sentence of Slotomania's Terms of Service Agreement which reads, "The Terms of Service you are reading are a legal agreement between Playtika Ltd. and yourself."
You will be shocked to read some of Playtika's legal team's tactics and the lengths they went to in order to win this lawsuit
You can read about it here:
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20160301e82
And that's how they are getting away with winning these lawsuits.
Tap the Facebook reaction button below to share this post with your Facebook friends. Thanks!
*****************************************
This lawsuit might shock you when you read the the link provided below. The case is settled and Ohio resident Robert Dupee (PLAINTIFF) lost against Playtika (DEFENDANTS). The lawsuit specifically says: to include any interested parties.
There is no reason why Robert Dupee should have lost this lawsuit based on 'semantics.'
Because several of its games are currently up for sale, Playtika hides poor performing games behind their numerous Playtika corporations. Even though Playtika SM wasn't specifically named in this lawsuit, Playtika used the art of misdirection to point out that they shouldn't be sued because they aren't named on the suit.
There are 11 Playtika subsidiaries so when challenged about which Playtika corporation owns a game (especially poor performers), Playtika can shift the poor performer over to another Playtika and then inform interest parties that (name of game) isn't owned and operated by Playtika SM corporation.
That is never more true when every branch of Playtika reaps profits from game income which then gets put in with their operating expenses for another year.
Playtika has been revamping all their subsidiaries since before Caesars was sold. Slotomania is still up for sale with no takers.
Whatever Playtika corporation is the most solvent at the moment when a buyer looks at Slotomania, is the corporation that Slotomania can be shifted to.
To say that Playtika SM is not responsible for games listed under Playtika Ltd is just ridiculous.
When they count up their money, I am sure that Ltd shares revenue with SM for operating expenses.
Each Playtika Corporation owns a chunk of each game but they broke it down so that each subsidiary is only responsible for certain aspects of each game - graphics, sound, 3D, maintenance of slots, - and not the whole game application.
The issue is whether Plaintiff Dupee has shown that Defendants' Playtika contact in Ohio are sufficient to satisfy Ohio's long-arm statute.
A long arm statute means a company can operate IN a state but they are physically located in a different place.
Therefore Playtika is operating IN Ohio but is not physically located IN Ohio.
Plaintiff Dupee asserts:
- that Defendants Playtika have proven they own Slotomania by selling virtual coins through Slotomania in the state of Ohio.
- that the Caesars Acquisition Company Annual Report and Playtika SM's LinkedIn page are adequate evidence to establish that the Defendants control and operate Slotomania.
- that Playtika SM represents its control, operation and facilitation of Slotomania online, by listing Slotomania as a Playtika SM product on their LinkedIn page.
- that the Caesars Acquisition Company Annual Report shows that CIE owns the Slotomania brand and directly profits from the operation of the game.
Playtika's response:
- that personal jurisdiction is improper because Playtika SM does not operate Slotomania, do not conduct any business, or maintain any physical or legal presence in Ohio.
- that Slotomania is not operated by Playtika SM but is operated by Playtika Ltd., a separate legal entity located in Israel.
Defendants point out the first sentence of Slotomania's Terms of Service Agreement which reads, "The Terms of Service you are reading are a legal agreement between Playtika Ltd. and yourself."
You will be shocked to read some of Playtika's legal team's tactics and the lengths they went to in order to win this lawsuit
You can read about it here:
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20160301e82
And that's how they are getting away with winning these lawsuits.
Tap the Facebook reaction button below to share this post with your Facebook friends. Thanks!
