Churchill Downs, Aristocrat Close to Terms on Big Fish Games Suits
Posted on: May 25, 2020, 10:04h.
Last updated on: May 25, 2020, 12:36h.
Churchill Downs and Aristocrat Leisure reached, in principle, an agreement to settle a pair of lawsuits stemming from the racetrack operator’s sale of Big Fish Games to the gaming machine producer in 2018.
The companies are close to settling the Kater v. Churchill Downs, Inc., and Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Inc. But the accords must be approved by the US Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Aristocrat has agreed to specifically release CDI of any and all indemnification obligations under the Stock Purchase Agreement dated November 29, 2017, between CDI, Aristocrat, and Big Fish Games, Inc. arising from or related to the Kater and Thimmegowda Litigations, including any claims of diminution of value of Big Fish Games, Inc. and any claims by any person who opts out of the proposed class settlement,” according to a statement.
Under the terms of the agreement, Churchill Downs will pay $124 million to end the litigation, while Australia-based Aristocrat will dole out $31 million.
Big Fish Backstory
At the time of Churchill’s 2014 acquisition of Big Fish, then valued at as much as $885 million, Big Fish Games was one of the largest producers of online and mobile games, while Big Fish Casino was a leader in social gaming and internet casinos.
In January 2018, Kentucky-based Churchill Down closed on the $990 million sale of Big Fish to Aristocrat. Some of those proceeds were used by the racetrack operator to repurchase its own stock.
Over the past couple of years, Big Fish and other social gaming companies faced mounting suits from customers that claimed they were duped into spending large amounts of money on the apps or web sites in what amounted to – in the plaintiffs’ views – illegal gambling.
In 2018, Judge Milan D. Smith of the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled that the virtual chips used in Big Fish games had value. In his opinion, Smith mocked Churchill’s claims that it was surprised about the element of illegal gambling.
Dedicated Plaintiffs
The Kater v. Churchill Downs, Inc. suit was filed by Cheryl Kater in 2015. She claimed that Big Fish’s offerings violated at least two Washington State laws – the Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act (RMLGA) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
Manasa Thimmegowda’s suit against Big Fish is more than a year old. Both Kater and Thimmegowda and another presumed litigant – Suzie Kelly – are specifically named in the online gaming company’s terms of service. Thimmegowda claims to have lost $3,000 playing Big Fish games on her iPhone, starting in 2017.
“By operating Big Fish Casino and other similar online gambling games, defendants have violated Washington law and illegally profited from tens of thousands of customers,” according to her suit. “Accordingly, [the] plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit to recover her losses and to obtain the appropriate relief.”
Related News Articles
Most Popular
Most Commented
Most Read
LOST VEGAS: First Documented ‘Trick Roll’ by a Prostitute
Corey Levitan
— September 9, 2024
Last Comments ( 4 )
I received notice by email that I was named in this Law Suit. I'm sure everyone who has spent money will be on it. I would like not to be named in this suit, but that would mean I would need a lawyer. So, I will do nothing and let the chips fall, as they say. I am responsible for my purchases, not Big Fish. I have won big spending no money. I have a set amount I play down to and I leave when I hit that amount. I have been playing this game for years and I am at a level that I received millions just opening up the game. I'm not stupid, do they want me to spend money, yes, they do. But I spend it wisely with no expectations. It's a game people.
Can I be added to the lawsuit.
I've been playing Big Fish Games for years. I started playing the Casino a couple of years ago. I enjoy playing the slots there. One of the reasons that I enjoy it is because I don't have to buy anything. I've had up to 9 million chips without paying out of my own pocket. I don't have a gambling problem and I think that probably the majority of players there also do not have problems with gambling, online or otherwise. We are able to control our gambling so that we can play games like this and never spend a penny. I've never felt coerced into buying extra chips. They are simply offers that show up when I sign into the game app. I click on the "X" and make them go away. I think that it's pretty ridiculous that people are so afraid of gambling addictions that they want to close down all gambling for anyone. I'm an alcoholic and I know that I can't drink, so I don't go to places where others are drinking or where drinks would be offered to me. If someone has a gambling problem, they need to do that on these online casino apps. Would you think it would be a good idea to shut down all liquor sales because 5% of us are addicted? If not, then why shut down these online games because a small minority of players have problems and spend too much money. In all of my gambling over the past 50+ years, physically and virtually, I've never expected my money back if I overspent and lost it. Again, too many laws invading our private lives.
Is there any possibility of a class action lawsuit becoming a reality in other states besides Washington State? In particular my state of California? I would be ecstatic to participate in it and have many incidences and experiences,along with much forced purchases,to bring to the attention of the court system.