In an influential development, International Game Technology (IGT), the parent company of DoubleDown Interactive (DDI), faced a significant legal challenge which they opted not to dispute, even though no guilt was admitted. The result may embolden other parties to pursue similar legal avenues, potentially disrupting IGT’s recent endeavours in the social gaming realm. This conclusion signifies a key change in the jurisprudence around online betting, thereby emphasizing the importance of defined social gaming regulations.
Judiciary Regarded the Settlement as Equitable and Reasonable
The class action suit, which was initially filed back in 2018, objected that DoubleDown Casino, owned by IGT, operated virtual casino games that amounted to illegal betting as per Washington state laws. Plaintiffs Mary Simonson and Adrienne Benson contended that the virtual chips utilised in the application possessed monetary value and could be bought using actual currency, thereby creating a form of unregulated and unlicensed gambling.
Visitors landing… on their inaugural visit can claim one million complimentary chips. These… give a sneak peek of the gambling experience and are crafted to lure players into the trap of purchasing additional chips with actual currency.
Benson v. DoubleDown
Eventually, by August 2022, DDI and IGT decided to agree to a substantial $415 million class action settlement. The presiding court carefully reviewed the details of the case, affirming that the agreement between the contending parties was equitable, satisfactory, and appropriate. US District Judge Robert Lasnik directed that the counsellors representing the plaintiffs had secured a “telling, unique, and hard-earned” legal success, presenting them with $121.5 million of the total settlement sum.
The remaining $292.5 million will be divided among several thousand class action members who engaged in DoubleDown’s games no later than 14 November 2022. Compensations should be on their way to the affected individuals, who had until 11 April 2023 to submit their claims. Nevertheless, they are not allowed to pursue any further legal actions in connection with the case.
The Case Illuminated the Escalating Issues with Social Gaming
Although DDI and IGT reject all allegations and deny violating any laws, they agreed to settle to sidestep the likely cost and uncertainty of pursuing the case. However, this decision to retreat from such a markedly public lawsuit brings into question the stability of similar social gaming platforms.
While it’s argued by social gaming platforms that virtual casinos only fulfil entertainment purposes, the lines between virtual money and actual currency continue to blur, provoking uncomfortable questions for operators. These services currently lie within a legislative gray area, potentially leaving consumers more vulnerable than with conventional online gaming.
The recent settlement clarified how the legislative ambiguity surrounding social games can also adversely affect operators. The situation can bear heavy implications for corporations like IGT, which persist in making substantial investments in the social gaming sector. It requires joint efforts from industry stakeholders, legal bodies, and lawmakers to create a comprehensive framework that safeguards consumer interests and ensures adherence to state gambling regulations.
