Viel
SpinX Games, Ltd. v. Viel
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
BACKGROUND
1 SpinX puts out “social casino” games—modeled after slot machines—for mobile devices. SpinX notes that “in the current version of the apps, virtual coins are automatically replenished by SpinX whenever a player’s balance reaches zero, so it is not necessary to purchase virtual coins to 5 play SpinX’s apps.” Mot. [Dkt. 7] at 1:7-10. Nonetheless, players are allowed to purchase virtual 6 coins (which have no value and cannot be redeemed for cash or prizes). 7 Thomas Viel, Carrisa Pyles, Britney Ross, Joshua Bennefield, and Sharon King 8 (“Respondents”) are SpinX customers who each filed an arbitration demand through AAA in their 9 state of residence: Massachusetts, Kentucky, Ohio, Georgia, and New Jersey respectively. Viel and Ross do not specify an amount in controversy in their arbitration demands. Bennefield, King, and Pyles allege that they paid “hundreds or thousands of dollars to SpinX” for virtual coins and 13 seek to recover their losses pursuant to state illegal gambling laws. 14 By playing SpinX’s games, customers agree to SpinX’s Terms of Service, which include 15 an arbitration provision. The parties acknowledge that the…