Mia Mason v. Machine Zone, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4766

Plaintiff Mia Mason, a Maryland resident, filed a Rule 23(b)(3) class action against Machine Zone over a Game of War in-game "virtual casino" wheel that players spin to win virtual prizes.
Game of War is free to download; players may buy virtual gold for real money and convert gold into nonredeemable virtual chips used to spin the wheel (one initial free spin, thereafter 5,000 chips per spin).
Virtual prizes include resources, chips, gold, or chances to play other in‑game chance events; outcomes are controlled by software odds and are not skill-based.
Mason alleged she spent over $100 buying virtual gold to obtain chips, and that spinning the wheel constituted gambling under Maryland’s Loss Recovery Statute (Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 12-110), seeking recovery of alleged gambling losses.
The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), finding Mason did not "lose money" under the statute; the Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding virtual items not redeemable for cash are not "money" under the statute and Mason failed to plead an essential element.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mason "lost money" under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 12-110 by spinning the virtual wheel	Mason: She spent real money to buy virtual gold to obtain chips; prizes won were worth less than money spent, so she "lost money" and can recover the difference	Machine Zone: Money was paid only to buy virtual gold; spins used nonredeemable chips and prizes are virtual, so no money was won or lost by Machine Zone or players in the casino	Held: No. Virtual gold/chips/prizes not redeemable for cash are not "money" under the statute; therefore Mason did not "lose money" and failed to state a claim

Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, 819 F.3d 697 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6))
F.A.C.E. Trading, Inc. v. Todd, 903 A.2d 348 (Md.) (Maryland gambling statutes construed to effectuate legislative purpose)
Gaither v. Cate, 144 A. 239 (Md.) (interpret statutes to give validity to word and spirit of law)
Cates v. State, 320 A.2d 75 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) (legislative purpose of loss recovery statute to discourage illegal gambling by enabling disgorgement)
Stoddard v. State, 911 A.2d 1245 (Md.) (interpret unambiguous statutory language according to plain meaning)
Kramer v. Bally's Park Place, Inc., 535 A.2d 466 (Md.) (Loss Recovery Statute provides civil remedy to recover money lost)
Harbourt v. PPE Casino Resorts Md., LLC, 820 F.3d 655 (4th Cir.) (pleading facts and consideration of integral documents on Rule 12(b)(6) review)
Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159 (4th Cir.) (consideration of documents integral to the complaint on motion to dismiss)