A new class action lawsuit in New Jersey is not only going after sweepstakes casino operators, but Google and Apple as well.
New Jersey resident Julian Bargo claimed in his complaint that he had lost more than $1,000 across a range of sweepstakes casinos. High 5 Casino, McLuck, Wow Vegas and CrownCoins Casino are all named as defendants in the case for allegedly offering an illegal gambling site.
Apple, Apple Pay, Google and Google Pay are also named in the suit, with Bargo bringing Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act charges for enabling and supporting the existence of these sweepstakes casinos.
RICO charges are typically reserved for organized crime but Bargo’s complaint reasoned they are applicable here.
Suit claims Apple and Google illegally profit off sweeps casino activity
RICO defines an enterprise as, “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” Bargo reasoned that, with the Google and Apple stores receiving a cut from profits of apps housed in their stores, including these social casinos, and because they offer their payment methods within these sweepstakes sites, they are complicit in the wrongdoing.
Like similar class actions, Bargo says sweepstakes casinos are masquerading as social casinos but actually are unregulated casinos with no oversight. The complaint includes several pieces of marketing highlighting what the plaintiff claims is misleading promotions intended to deceive patrons into believing these sites are free to play.
“The Gaming Defendants have succeeded in misleading regulators about the true nature of their operations for far too long,” the complaint read. Sweepstakes and social casinos are unregulated and do not require licensing, so it unclear what the plaintiff means in terms of how the groups are misleading regulators.
However, there are some regulators, such as in Michigan and Ohio, that have taken a hard stance on social casinos and other forms of unregulated gambling and sent several effective cease and desist letters to sweepstakes operators like those named in the suit.
This is the first suit to name Google and Apple as co-defendants but not the first sweepstakes suit to bring in payment processors as defendants. A similar lawsuit against VGW filed in Florida has named Worldpay as a co-defendant.
Arbitration remains an issue in most sweepstakes casino lawsuits
In his claim, Bargo acknowledged the issue that has sidelined several class action lawsuits against sweeps operators–binding arbitration.
Bargo openly admitted the terms and conditions on these sites include “ironclad arbitration agreements” and did not include any mention of opting out of such agreements. A class action in Georgia filed by Destiny Kennedy claims the plaintiff opted out of the binding arbitration clause, but in its motion to dismiss, defendant VGW noted that Kennedy failed to opt out of subsequent updates to the terms and conditions. Accordingly, the group is still arguing that the case requires compelled arbitration. A similar class action file against the sweepstakes sportsbook Fliff was sent to arbitration earlier this year.
