Online Gambling Legal Argument In Washington State USA

Published Thursday, April 12, 2018 - Online-Casinos.com
Online Gambling Legal Argument In Washington State USA

The legality of online gambling seems to be the most contested hot issue in courts and regimes all around the world. The legal gamble that is presented to every start up gambling company is formidable and expensive especially when the rules change abruptly. The recent attack by the State of Washington USA legal eagles on four online gambling firms offering free to play casino games is a wakeup call for those firms walking the legal edge. The suits filed the case after the  appeals court found Big Fish Games’ casino games violated Washington state law which govern online gambling activity. These four lawsuits focus on the “free-to-play” casino games offering from Huuuge Games, DoubleDown Interactive, High 5 Games and Playtika.

Big Fish Casino for example offers free-to-play versions of some of the all-time casino classics, with participants being allowed to play these games by using virtual chips that do not have real monetary value.

The US Court of Appeals’ Judge Milan D. Smith, however decided that virtual chips could be described as “thing of value”, so purchasing these chips to participate the free casino games versions were actually illegal online gambling under existing Washington state gambling legislation. The legislation has been upheld by the courts and that has spelled trouble for online betting firms operating casual gaming in the State of Washington USA manly because many free games use in-app purchases as a revenue driver, and it appears there some recoil happening.

A vague clause within Washington state law that determines chips “something of value,” is the argument presented in the case. The case argues, the chips have value, because they are essential to continue playing the game.

There is a class action status attached to these law suits that are requiring the firms to be prohibited from “continuing the challenged conduct” and for damages. The plaintiffs have allegedly lost money on all of the sites in question.

 

Related news

Return to Latest News