Rick Larsen, et al vs. PTT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, et al

Case Background

On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff Rick Larsen filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Washington Western (Case number: 3:18cv5275), alleging issues related to a virtual casino and online gambling. District Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright presided over the case.

Cause

Plaintiff Sean Wilson filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant PTT, LLC, doing business as High 5 Games, LLC, alleging that the company operated an illegal virtual casino. High 5 Games developed and managed online slot machine games accessible on mobile devices, including Android and iOS. The lawsuit claimed that the Defendant initially provided free virtual chips to first-time users. However, once those chips ran out, users had to purchase additional chips to continue playing. Players bought these chips with real money and wagered them in slot machine-style games, where the outcome depended entirely on chance.

The lawsuit argued that this system constituted illegal online gambling under Washington state law. It further alleged that the Defendant violated consumer protection laws by misleading users into believing they were playing a harmless game while profiting from microtransactions tied to gambling behavior. The complaint pointed out that the virtual casino mimicked real-world gambling practices. It included flashy incentives and pop-ups urging players to buy more chips when their balance ran low.

Injuries

Plaintiff Wilson alleged that he suffered financial loss due to his participation in the virtual casino. He claimed that after using his initial allocation of free chips, he purchased additional chips to continue playing. Ultimately, he lost them by wagering in the game. The lawsuit contended that thousands of other players across Washington state faced similar financial harm, while the company profited significantly from their losses.

The complaint referenced studies indicating that free-to-play gambling-style games often led to addictive behaviors and substantial financial loss for players. It also claimed that High 5 Games exploited psychological triggers to encourage continued spending. This practice disproportionately affected vulnerable individuals.

Damages

The lawsuit sought financial restitution for all Washington players who purchased chips and lost them while wagering in the virtual casino. Plaintiff Wilson and other class members demanded the return of lost funds, arguing that the Defendant’s business model profited from illegal online gambling. Additionally, the complaint sought treble damages under Washington’s consumer protection laws. It also requested reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The total damages sought exceeded $5 million, reflecting the widespread financial harm caused by the unfair business practices of the online gambling platform.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Rick Larsen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Amy Hausmann | Benjamin H. Richman | Brandt Silver-Korn | Cecily Jordan | Daniel Kieselstein | Eve-Lynn Rapp | Hannah Hilligoss | Jay Edelson | Lauren Blazing | Max Hantel | Megan Delurey | Nicholas Rosinia | Rafey S. Balabanian | Todd Logan | Victor Cedeno | Alexander G. Tievsky | Kaleigh Boyd
  • Defendant(s): PTT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company | doing business as | High 5 Games, LLC | High 5 Entertainment LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company
    • Counsel for Defendants: Aja Robbins | Bria Smith | Christopher Wright | Craig Stewart | Erik F. Stidham | Jessica Smith | Mark Rosencrantz | Robert C. Ryan | Teague I. Donahey

 Claims

Violation of Washington’s Gambling Laws –

The lawsuit argued that High 5 Games’ virtual casino constituted illegal online gambling. Users wagered something of value (chips purchased with real money) on games of chance.

Violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) –

The complaint alleged that the Defendant engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices. It claimed that the company marketed the virtual casino as a casual game while concealing its gambling-like nature.

Unjust Enrichment –

The lawsuit contended that High 5 Games unjustly profited from consumers who spent real money on virtual chips. It demanded restitution for the funds lost by players.

Defense

High 5 Games denied that its platform constituted illegal online gambling. The company argued that its video games did not meet Washington state’s legal definition of gambling. It acknowledged that players could purchase virtual coins but asserted that these coins had no real-world value and could not be exchanged for money. High 5 Games maintained that its platform operated as entertainment rather than a gambling enterprise.

The Defendant challenged the lawsuit’s jurisdiction, arguing that the court lacked both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. The company further contended that the Plaintiff voluntarily participated in the virtual casino and understood the terms and conditions. These terms included provisions governing disputes. High 5 Games also pointed out that Wilson and other players could receive free coins, which undermined the argument that they were forced to pay to continue playing.

Additionally, the defense raised multiple affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim, lack of standing, and the voluntary payment doctrine. High 5 Games asserted that Plaintiff and other class members willingly made purchases and assumed the risks of playing. The company also argued that third parties or the Plaintiff’s own actions, rather than the Defendant, caused any alleged damages.

High 5 Games sought to dismiss the claims entirely. It requested that the court deny any relief to the Plaintiff and the proposed class. The company also sought reimbursement for legal fees and other costs associated with defending the lawsuit.

Jury Verdict

On February 7, 2025, the jury determined that Plaintiff Larsen individually proved actual damages of $74,705.00. It awarded him enhanced damages under the Consumer Protection Act of $4,183.48, bringing his total damages to $78,888.48.

For the Class, the jury found actual damages amounting to $17,742,885.64. It also awarded enhanced damages of $7,185,856.58. This brought the Class’s total damages to $24,928,742.22. The combined total damages awarded in the case amounted to $25,007,630.70.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com