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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff Mihajlo Ristic said he began Game that is playing of in 2014. In just a six-month duration he spent at least $50, he says, or ‘perhaps a lot more than $500,’ on these ‘wagers.’ Consequently, Machine Zone illegally operated a gambling device and engaged in unfair conduct by breaking state gambling regulations, 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 being an illegal ‘slot machine or device.’ The judge in that situation scoffed at 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 reason for this is actually the rediscovery associated with the aforementioned Loss healing Act, an antiquated claw-back statute

The law states that any Illinois gambler who loses $50 or more has the proper to sue the winner to get the cash back. Bizarrely, it also states that should the losing gambler perhaps not sue the winner within sixth months, then ‘any person’ is permitted to sue the champion, for approximately three times the amount.

It was under this legal premise that two moms Kelly Sonnenberg and Judy Fahrner brought a case in August 2012 against Amaya, searching for to reclaim money lost by their sons and ‘other gamblers’ on PokerStars and Full Tilt US operations in 2011 before they ceased.

Yes, the mothers were trying their luck. These people were attempting to sue to reclaim the money of any gambler in Illinois whom ever lost a penny at PokerStars or Full Tilt, in order to grossly enrich themselves.

Parallels to Amaya Case

Thankfully, these people were laughed out of court. The judge made the point that is obvious PokerStars et al had been merely charging a rake, and for that reason could not be perceived as a ‘winner,’ or even as a ‘gambler.’

Judge Dow referred to the Amaya situation in his dismissal of the claim against Game of War this week. Machine Zone is not really a gambler, since no amount of Machine Zone’s earned money ever depended on the outcome of the game, he said.

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

Simply speaking, the biggest and, in reality, only ‘gamble’ this plaintiff made would be to file the truth in the very first place.