High 5 Games’ Mobile Apps Ruled Illegal in Washington
After a lengthy legal battle, the two mobile apps offered by High 5 Games have been deemed illegal in the state of Washington. In a landmark ruling, Judge Tiffany Cartwright from the Western Washington District Court found that both High 5 Casino and High 5 Vegas constitute online gambling, which is prohibited in the state.
Understanding Washington’s Stance on Online Gambling
Under Washington state law, online gambling is classified as any activity that requires users to stake value on the outcome of a game of chance or an event with a prize on offer for a specific outcome. This stringent classification has led many gaming operators, including social ones, to steer clear of the Washington market.
High 5 Games argued that its mobile apps operate using virtual coins and fall under the category of a "social casino." However, Judge Cartwright was unpersuaded by this argument. High 5’s games mimic video slot machines used for gambling in physical casinos, blurring the lines between social gaming and gambling, according to the court.
Violations of State Laws
Judge Cartwright determined that High 5 Games’ offerings are prohibited under the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act. This decision comes six years after Rick Larsen, a High 5 Games player, initially filed the lawsuit.
The Mechanics of High 5’s Games
One of the primary bones of contention was the fact that the games promoted illegal gambling by necessitating players to purchase additional chips using real money. High 5 Games contended that players are provided with free coins upon registration and are periodically awarded more, enabling them to play without spending money. However, Judge Cartwright pointed out that players cannot play with regularity unless they are willing to make monetary purchases. Washington law recognizes virtual currency as a “thing of value,” even if it cannot be redeemed for cash, further solidifying the court’s stance.
High 5 Games responded by stating that it has taken steps to stop operating in Washington following the verdict. Despite these assertions, Judge Cartwright ruled that the company is liable to pay damages to Rick Larsen and other affected plaintiffs. The exact amount of these damages is to be determined by a jury.
Ongoing Legal Battles
SBC Americas has yet to receive a response from High 5 Games regarding the verdict. Meanwhile, a separate case involving High 5 Games, Wilson vs. PTT, LLC, remains active but has seen little progress since early 2023. This case further underscores the legal scrutiny facing online gaming companies in Washington.
Judge Robert Lasnik, who is overseeing the Wilson vs. PTT, LLC case, has previously ruled that other online gaming companies, including DoubleDown Interactive and IGT, also violated Washington state gambling laws. Like High 5 Games, these companies offer games that are free to play but provide users the option to purchase additional chips. Consumers often bet to acquire more chips, which they would otherwise need to buy, creating a gambling-like environment.
Implications for the Industry
The ruling against High 5 Games serves as a significant warning to other gaming operators about the potential legal ramifications of operating in states with strict gambling laws like Washington. As laws around online gambling continue to evolve, companies must ensure they comply with state regulations to avoid similar legal entanglements.
Official Statements
Judge Cartwright summed up the ruling succinctly, stating, “The undisputed material facts as to liability show that High 5’s games violate Washington’s gambling laws and the Consumer Protection Act.” This clear-cut position leaves little room for ambiguity, setting a precedent for how virtual currencies and social casinos are viewed under the law.
In conclusion, the ruling against High 5 Games is a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding online gambling and social casinos. As High 5 Games prepares to face a jury to determine the amount of damages payable, the wider online gaming industry will likely be watching closely to see how this case influences future regulatory actions.