A private individual who claims to have lost money on social casino games has filed a class-action lawsuit against Big Fish Games, Inc., the social gaming subsidiary of Australian slot manufacturer Aristocrat Leisure, Limited. The suit claims damages on behalf of any similar individuals who have been negatively affected by what the plaintiff contends are illegal games of chance offered by the social casino.
At the heart of the lawsuit are virtual chips which are available from the social casino to regenerate “free play.” The plaintiff contends that the purchase of the virtual chips makes them items of value, and risking them constitutes gambling, making the social slot offerings games of chance.
The complaint alleges that developers of the games “have begun exploiting the same psychological triggers as casino operators.” The complaint said the company depends on certain customers known as “whales,” similar to how casinos operate, who, though a miniscule percentage of players, provide nearly half the revenue for social casinos.
Aristocrat officials pledged to “vigorously defend” against the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against Seattle-based Big Fish Games.
The action of the plaintiff, Manasa Thimmegowda, names Big Fish Games, Inc.; former Big Fish Games owner Churchill Downs Inc., Aristocrat Leisure and U.S. subsidiary Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. Details of the class action became public on Tuesday, which led to the Australian slot-machine maker’s response, although the lawsuit was filed on February 11. Aristocrat Leisure said it had not received details of the suit.
Aristocrat acquired Big Fish Games last year in a US$990 million cash deal. is a developer of online casino games in Seattle, Washington state, which The acquisition made Aristocrat the second-largest social casino publisher globally.
Months after the acquisition, a U.S. court ruled that playing Big Fish online games with virtual gaming chips, which cost nothing to begin with, amounted to illegal gambling in Washington. The virtual chips cannot be exchanged for cash, but a player that runs out of chips has to pay to get more to keep playing. The lawsuit said payments start at under US$1 but can run into hundreds of dollars. The games include virtual blackjack, poker and slot games.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the plaintiff was a former player of Big Fish Casino who had lost more than AUD3,000 (US$2,150) after a month’s play on the mobile phone app. The legal case says “online gambling games” break Washington state law, meaning the defendants “illegally profited from tens of thousands of customers.” The plaintiff is seeking to “recover her losses” and to seek “appropriate relief.”
One of Thimmegowda’s attorneys sent an email statement to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that read, “As we allege in our complaint, the mobile gambling industry, by design, preys on consumers by bringing addictive gambling opportunities directly into their homes.”
