Cayce v. VGW, Ltd.; Cayce v. Zynga, Inc.; Fuqua v. Playtika, Ltd.; Jenkins v. DoubleDown Interactive LLC; Gunkel v. Huuuge, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky dismissed five consolidated actions brought under Kentucky Revised Statutes §§ 372.010 and 372.040, which allow recovery of gambling losses by certain non-losing plaintiffs. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they alleged no personal gambling losses, and it rejected their argument that the Kentucky statute creates a qui tam-like assignment of governmental or private interests.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs who did not play or lose money on the defendants' games lack Article III standing because they did not suffer a personal injury in fact.
2. Kentucky Revised Statutes § 372.040 does not confer Article III standing on these plaintiffs through a qui tam or private-attorney-general analogy.
3. The plaintiffs did not establish standing as assignees of the injured players' claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs who did not play or lose money on defendants' social-casino games suffered an injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing.
2. Whether Kentucky Revised Statutes § 372.040 confers standing on an uninjured plaintiff under a qui tam, private-attorney-general, or assignment theory.
3. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims.

Disposition

dismissed