Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Social Game Site Excludes Washington Players; Gambling Commission Comments

By James Gatto on April 6, 2018
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

As previously reported, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s dismissal of a purported class action and held that a social casino game constituted illegal gambling under Washington law. According to the Court, all online or virtual gambling is illegal in Washington state. The panel held that the virtual chips extended the privilege of playing the game and fell within Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0285’s definition of a “thing of value.” In response to this, at least one social game company, Poker Stars, has decided to deny Washington residents access to their site.

The Washington State Gambling Commission recently issued a statement related to this case. It stated:

Since the decision was published, we have become aware that some online social gaming websites, including Poker Stars, have proactively made the business decision to deny Washington residents access to their sites. We are not a party to the civil court case, we did not testify in the case, and we did not order these sites to discontinue free online play for Washington residents. Customers with concerns should contact these websites directly.

Given the uncertainty around this issue, it is possible that other social game companies may decide to temporarily deny service to Washington state residents. As we previously reported, the primary basis for this ruling was the definition of “thing of value” under Washington state law. This definition was determined to include “extension of a service, entertainment or a privilege of playing at a game or scheme without charge.” In the game at issue, if players ran out of chips they lost the right to play the game.

While the 9th Circuit decision interpreted Washington state law, arguably this definition applies under some other states as well. It is prudent for social game companies to get legal advice to assess whether this decision may impact their games in Washington and elsewhere to determine how they want to proceed.

Photo of James Gatto James Gatto

Jim Gatto is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. He is Co-Leader of the Artificial Intelligence Team, the Blockchain & Fintech Team, and Leader of the Open Source Team.

Read more about James GattoEmail
  • Posted in:
    Sports and Gaming
  • Blog:
    Game Counsel
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo