Playtika Seeks Dismissal in Washington Social Casino Case
These apps can be downloaded for free. However, they generate revenue through in-app purchases. Players purchase coins, chips, or credits that they use to play slots, bingo, poker, and scratch card games.
Paid Virtual Currency Drives the Dispute
Apps named in the lawsuit include Slotomania, House of Fun, Caesars Casino Slots, and Bingo Blitz. These games’ virtual currencies are not redeemable into cash. The State of Washington asserts that cash redemption is not necessary for the activity to constitute gambling.
As stated in the complaint, an estimated 96,350 Washingtonians use Playtika games each month. Another 56,870 Washington residents use games operated by Aristocrat and its affiliates.
Since September 2020, users have allegedly spent over $151 million on purchases of virtual currency in Playtika games and over $74 million in Aristocrat games.
Earlier Ruling Shapes the State’s Claim
The issue hinges on Washington’s broad statutory definition of a “thing of value.” The state argues that virtual credits fall within that definition because they extend the privilege of playing.
The state is basing its case on the Ninth Circuit’s 2018 ruling in Kater v. Churchill Downs. The court found that Big Fish Casino’s virtual chips were a “thing of value” because they extended the privilege of playing.
Attorney General Nick Brown’s office says that these apps work in the same transaction model. The user buys the virtual currency, selects the stake, and receives more virtual currency in case of a win.
This case also has allegations under Washington Consumer Protection Act.
Playtika Defends Free-to-Play Model
Playtika has asked the King County court to dismiss the suit. The company says its Continuous Play or Another Chance feature gives users enough free currency to return to a low-stakes version of a game without making a purchase.
It argues that users are not obligated to pay for virtual currency in order to play games. The state argues that just because there is a free way, it does not mean that a paid wagering option does not exist.
The complaint separately alleges that the apps have inadequate age controls. It also says the operators received reports from users describing debt, damaged relationships and emotional distress. These allegations have not been tested in court. The dismissal motion is scheduled for oral argument next month.
What to Watch Next
The outcome is likely to depend on product mechanics rather than casino imagery. A ruling for Washington could expose other games that sell extra lives, attempts, or playable credits to similar legal arguments. A dismissal would support the industry’s position that paid digital entertainment remains outside gambling law when users cannot cash out their rewards.