349 F. Supp. 3d 1028
W.D. Wash.2018Background
- Plaintiff Wilson brought a proposed class action in Washington against Playtika Ltd., Playtika Holding Corp., and Caesars Interactive, alleging their social/mobile slot apps (e.g., Slotomania, House of Fun, Caesars Slots, Vegas Downtown Slots) constitute illegal gambling under Washington law because users buy virtual "coins" to continue play.
- Wilson personally played three apps; the complaint alleges class-wide claims for all Playtika games and seeks recovery under RCW § 4.24.070, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment.
- Playtika moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, enforcement of an Israeli forum-selection clause in its Terms of Service (browsewrap), forum non conveniens, and failure to state a claim; it also sought to strike claims tied to Vegas Downtown Slots (which Wilson did not allege he played).
- The court treated the core dispute as transactional (contract/purchase of coins) and applied purposeful-availment analysis for specific jurisdiction.
- On the merits, the court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent (Kater) holding virtual coins can be a "thing of value" under RCW, considered Playtika's submitted public materials only for notice (not for disputed factual assertions), and rejected Playtika's bona-fide-business-transaction and dismissal arguments at the pleading stage.
- Court denied Playtika's motion to dismiss and strike and granted judicial notice of certain public documents; case remains in Washington for now.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction (specific) | Wilson: Playtika entered into numerous consumer transactions with Washington residents and thus purposefully availed itself of Washington; specific jurisdiction exists. | Playtika: Not subject to Washington jurisdiction—no HQ/incorporation there; merely placed app in stream of commerce; no purposeful targeting. | Court: Specific jurisdiction exists under purposeful-availment (transactional nature, repeated sales to WA users); even purposeful-direction would suffice. |
| Enforceability of Terms of Service (forum-selection clause) | Wilson: Never manifested assent to Playtika's Terms (browsewrap); no notice or prompt tying the "Continue" button to Terms. | Playtika: Terms (including Israel forum clause) govern disputes; users assumed to accept Terms. | Court: Terms not enforceable here—browsewrap lacked adequate notice; no affirmative manifestation of assent. |
| Forum non conveniens | Wilson: Washington is appropriate forum; public interest in enforcing state gambling law; plaintiff's choice entitled to deference. | Playtika: Israel is adequate alternative forum and private factors favor dismissal. | Court: Declined dismissal—alternative forum existed but private factors mixed and public factors (WA interest, governing law) weigh against dismissal. |
| Failure to state a claim — virtual coins as "thing of value" and exemptions | Wilson: Coins extend the privilege to continue playing and thus are a "thing of value" under RCW; Kater controls. | Playtika: Free coin awards (beyond initial allotment) and enhanced features mean coins are not a "thing of value" or conduct falls under bona fide business-transaction exception. | Court: Followed Kater—coins can be a "thing of value" even if occasional free awards exist; bona fide exception rejected at pleading stage; allegations suffice to proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir.) (personal jurisdiction plaintiff burden and prima facie standard)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and forum analysis principles)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir.) (website/app audience and "express aiming" for jurisdiction)
- Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing purposeful availment and online discrete transactions)
- Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc., 886 F.3d 784 (9th Cir.) (virtual gaming chips constitute a "thing of value" under Washington law)