A lawsuit against Machine Zone, developers of the popular Game of War: Fire Age, was trashed of court by a federal judge in Illinois week that is late last.

Judge Robert Dow rejected a claim that the popular smartphone game violates the Illinois Loss Recovery Act and also the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Game of War is a massive multi-player online game (MMO), in which players build and train armies and kind alliances as they strive to prosper in a imaginary landscape that is geopolitical.

It’s free to play, but users have the ability to purchase ‚virtual gold‘ in purchase to aid their advancement into the game.

For example, $4.99 will purchase you 1,200 items of the worthless currency that is digital while $99.99 will allow you to get 20,000 pieces. It also contains a digital casino,‘ in which players can ‚wager‘ virtual money, hoping to win useful minerals to help their quest, such as for example timber, rock and more gold, all ‚virtual,‘ of course.

Plaintiff Mihajlo Ristic stated he began Game that is playing of in 2014. Inside a period that is six-month spent at least $50, he says, or ‚perhaps more than $500,‘ on these ‚wagers.‘ Consequently, Machine Zone illegally operated a gambling device and engaged in unfair conduct by violating state gambling legislation, according to Ristic.

Bizarre Illinois Gambling Statue Doesn’t Wash

This is not the first time Game of War has faced action that is legal. a lawsuit that is civil Maryland last year accused the game of becoming an illegal ’slot device or device.‘ The judge in that full instance scoffed during the ‚hodgepodge of hollow claims‘ that lacked ‚allegations of real-world harms or injuries‘ and which had no claim to any form of compensation in ‚a real-world court.‘

But Illinois has become a hotbed of bizarre gambling recovery claims throughout the couple that is past of. The explanation for this is the rediscovery associated with aforementioned Loss healing Act, an antiquated statute that is claw-back

The law states that any Illinois gambler who loses $50 or more has the right to sue the winner to back get the money. Bizarrely, it also states that should the gambler that is losing sue the winner within sixth months, then ‚any person‘ is permitted to sue the champion, for up to three times the amount.

It had been under this appropriate premise that two moms Kelly Sonnenberg and Judy Fahrner brought a situation in August 2012 against Amaya, looking for to reclaim money lost by their sons and ‚other gamblers‘ on PokerStars and Full Tilt before they ceased US operations in 2011.

Yes, the mothers were trying their luck. They were wanting to sue to reclaim the cash of any gambler in Illinois whom ever lost a penny at PokerStars or Full Tilt, in order to grossly enrich on their own.

Parallels to Amaya Case

Thankfully, these were laughed out of court. The judge made the point that is obvious PokerStars et al were simply charging a rake, and so could perhaps not be perceived as a ‚winner,‘ or even as a ‚gambler.‘

Judge Dow known the Amaya instance in his dismissal of the claim against Game of War this week. Machine Zone is not just a gambler, since no amount of Machine Zone’s earned money ever depended on the results of the overall game, he said.

Nor did the overall game violate gambling laws, or impose ‚a lack of meaningful choice or an unreasonable burden.‘ Neither did it cause significant, unavoidable damage.

In a nutshell, the biggest and, in fact, only ‚gamble‘ this plaintiff made would be to file the situation in the first spot.