140 F. Supp. 3d 457
D. Maryland2015Background
- Plaintiff Mia Mason, a non‑California resident, played Machine Zone’s free‑to‑play mobile game Game of War (GoW), purchased in‑game virtual currency (“gold”) for real money, and wagered that virtual currency in an in‑game “Casino.”
- Plaintiff alleges she lost over $100 in real‑dollar equivalents by spinning a virtual wheel and contends the Casino is an unlawful slot machine under Cal. Penal Code § 330b; she sues under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Maryland’s loss‑recovery statute (Md. Crim. Law § 12‑110), and unjust enrichment, and sought class certification.
- GoW’s Terms of Service disclaim any real‑world value: virtual currency and goods are nontransferable, revocable licenses and “may never be redeemed for ‘real world’ money.”
- Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the court treated the pleadings as alleging no real‑world loss at the point of wagering because any economic sacrifice occurred when plaintiff purchased nontransferable virtual currency.
- The court found the Casino function is not a “machine, apparatus, or device” under § 330b when read to require physical hardware and, in any event the overall game is predominately one of skill (an express statutory exclusion).
- The court concluded plaintiff lacked UCL standing and failed to plead economic injury causally linked to an unlawful practice, rejected unjust enrichment and Maryland statutory claims for similar reasons, granted the motion to dismiss, and denied class certification as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GoW Casino is a “slot machine or device” under Cal. Penal Code § 330b | Casino’s chance‑based spins awarding in‑game prizes fit § 330b’s definition of a gambling device | § 330b’s “machine, apparatus, or device” contemplates physical hardware/software alone on users’ devices is not covered; even if covered, GoW is predominantly a game of skill | Court: not a § 330b device (software alone not within plain meaning); GoW predominates by skill, so exclusion applies |
| Whether plaintiff has UCL standing and alleged an economic injury caused by unlawful conduct | Mason lost real‑money equivalent by wagering; unlawful device caused economic loss and unjust enrichment | No real‑world loss at wagering—the loss occurred when plaintiff purchased nontransferable virtual currency; no causal economic injury; defendant provided the bargained‑for entertainment | Court: plaintiff lacks UCL standing on pleadings and failed to allege cognizable economic injury causally linked to unlawful practice; UCL claim dismissed |
| Whether unjust enrichment/restitution is warranted | Defendant unjustly retained money received from in‑game purchases tied to illegal gambling | Plaintiff received the bargained‑for entertainment value; returning funds would unjustly reverse an executed exchange | Court: unjust enrichment claim fails—no inequitable retention where plaintiff received what she paid for |
| Whether Maryland’s loss‑recovery statute permits recovery for virtual‑currency losses | Wagering virtual chips that affected account value equates to losing money at a gaming device under Md. law | Plaintiff did not lose money at the Casino; conversion into nonredeemable virtual currency is not a wagered loss recoverable under § 12‑110; alleged secondary market speculation is too conjectural | Court: § 12‑110 claim fails—no actual money lost at the device and speculative secondary‑market theories insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must raise right to relief above speculative level)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (UCL private standing requires economic injury causally linked to unfair practice)
- Trinkle v. Stroh, 60 Cal.App.4th 771 (machines awarding in‑game credits can be illegal slot machines)
- Score Family Fun Ctr., Inc. v. County of San Diego, 225 Cal.App.3d 1217 (arcade point systems treated as gambling devices under § 330b)
- People ex rel. Green v. Grewal, 61 Cal.4th 544 (integrated sweepstakes/internet‑café systems can violate § 330b)
- People ex rel. Lockyer v. Pac. Gaming Techs., 82 Cal.App.4th 699 (vending systems paying cash prizes can violate § 330b)
- Kelly v. First Astri Corp., 72 Cal.App.4th 462 (California policy disfavors judicial recovery of gambling losses)
- Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group, 783 F.3d 753 (unjust enrichment allegations may be construed as quasi‑contract restitution)
- Peterson v. Cellco P’ship, 164 Cal.App.4th 1583 (no UCL standing where plaintiff received bargained‑for benefit)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (speculative future injury is insufficient for Article III standing)