Charles Cayce v. VGW, Ltd., et al.; Charles Cayce v. Zynga, Inc.; Dianne Fuqua v. Playtika, Ltd., et al.; Wade Jenkins v. Doubledown Interactive LLC; Clay Manning Gunkel v. Huuuge, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky dismissed five related actions brought under Kentucky Revised Statutes §§ 372.010 and 372.040. The court held that plaintiffs who did not personally incur gambling losses lacked Article III standing to seek treble recovery of losses allegedly incurred by other players. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Kentucky’s statute operated like a qui tam or assigned-claim statute, and dismissed the cases for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff who alleges no personal gambling loss does not suffer an injury in fact merely because Kentucky law permits the plaintiff to seek treble damages based on another person's loss.
2. Kentucky Revised Statute section 372.040 does not confer Article III standing on these plaintiffs through a qui tam or assignment theory.
3. The plaintiffs lacked standing as assignees because they alleged no express assignment of the injured players' rights to sue and Kentucky's statute, as pleaded, assigns only a procedural right to bring an action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs who did not personally play or lose money through defendants' social-casino games suffered an injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing.
2. Whether Kentucky Revised Statute section 372.040 confers standing on an uninjured plaintiff by assigning a governmental or private party interest, or by functioning like a qui tam statute.
3. Whether the plaintiffs' claims could proceed in federal court despite their statutory entitlement to seek treble damages for other persons' gambling losses.

Disposition

dismissed