Kelly Sonnenberg v. Amaya Group Holdings (IOM) Ltd, 810 F.3d 509

Four plaintiffs filed two diversity suits under Illinois law against operators of Internet gambling sites seeking recovery of gambling losses; district court dismissed complaints and plaintiffs appealed.
Casey Sonnenberg and Daniel Fahrner lost $50+ on defendants’ sites but failed to sue the winners within the six-month period required by the Illinois Loss Recovery Act, § 5/28-8(a). Their suits were therefore time-barred.
Their mothers, Kelly Sonnenberg and Judy Fahrner, who did not gamble, sued under § 5/28-8(b), which allows “any person” to sue for triple the gambler’s loss if the gambler fails to sue within six months.
Plaintiffs contend site operators are the “winners” who should be liable; defendants argue the sites merely host games and collect fees, not wins from players.
Court found Illinois statutory scheme distinguishes winners (other players) from hosts/operators and that criminal provisions do not create a civil private right of action against site operators for ordinary gambling losses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether site operators are “winners” under the Loss Recovery Act	Site hosts collect money from pots and thus are winners liable to reimburse losses	Hosts merely take fees/rake and do not win individual bets; winners are other players	Hosts are not winners; plaintiffs cannot recover under § 5/28-8
Whether a private civil cause of action exists under criminal gambling statutes against site operators	Implied civil remedy should be read into criminal statutes to allow recovery of losses	No private right should be implied when statute already provides enforcement and criminal penalties	Court refused to imply private right of action into criminal provisions
Whether plaintiffs’ suits were timely under Loss Recovery Act	Mothers: § 5/28-8(b) permits any person to sue for triple losses after six months	Defendants: sons failed to sue within six months, so mothers cannot piggyback to recover from non-winners	Sons’ claims time-barred; mothers cannot recover from site operators as winners
Whether § 5/28-7 (voiding gambling contracts) supports relief against operators	Plaintiffs seek to void contracts and recover losses under § 5/28-7	Plaintiffs have no contract with defendants to void	§ 5/28-7 inapplicable because no contract between plaintiffs and site operators

Ranney v. Flinn, 60 Ill. App. 104 (1894) (distinguishes winners from hosts in gambling disputes)
Bartlett v. Slusher, 74 N.E. 370 (1905) (statute of limitations principles under Illinois loss recovery law)
Kizer v. Walden, 65 N.E. 116 (1902) (timeliness requirements for loss recovery suits)
Reuter v. MasterCard Int’l, Inc., 921 N.E.2d 1205 (Ill. App. 2010) (analysis of who qualifies as a ‘‘winner’’ for recovery statutes)
Metzger v. DaRosa, 805 N.E.2d 1165 (Ill. 2004) (courts reluctant to imply private rights when statute provides enforcement mechanisms)

The judgment dismissing the suits is AFFIRMED.