One of the multiple class action lawsuits filed against VGW, a prominent name in the US sweepstakes industry, has been temporarily dismissed.
The Georgia Northern District Court ruled against proceeding with a class action suit initiated by Fair Gaming Advocates against VGW Holdings. Judge Thomas Thrash determined that the court lacked jurisdiction to handle the case.
Fair Gaming attempted to justify the lawsuit by pointing out that VGW accepts customers from Georgia and employs two Georgia residents who work remotely, thus making the court an appropriate venue. However, Judge Thrash countered this argument, indicating that the nature of the gaming website did not meet the criteria outlined in the state’s long-arm statute.
“Although the casino gaming websites of the defendants could be accessed by users in Georgia and payments were accepted from them for gaming activities, the Court finds such limited interaction insufficient to meet the business transaction requirement of O.C.G.A § 9-10-91(1),” the ruling stated.
“Even if it qualified, exercising jurisdiction under the long-arm statute would violate the principles of fairness and substantial justice, as the defendants could not reasonably anticipate being summoned to court in Georgia (or any other state) merely because residents interact with their websites,” the judge explained.
Judge Thrash further clarified that since VGW’s platforms like Chumba and Luckyland do not provide goods or services directly to Georgia, they are considered passive websites, falling outside the court’s jurisdiction, similar to the ruling in Pascarelli v Koehler, involving a hotel reservation website.
VGW had requested that the court order arbitration for the case, which is where similar social casino lawsuits have often been directed. However, Thrash declined the request, stating that if the court cannot preside over the case, it cannot mandate arbitration either.
There is another ongoing VGW lawsuit in the Georgia Southern District Court, filed by Destiny Kennedy. Kennedy contends that she opted out of the arbitration clause in VGW’s terms and conditions. Nonetheless, VGW claims Kennedy accepted updated terms after creating her account and did not opt out.
Furthermore, VGW maintains that the court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate this lawsuit. This case remains active, awaiting a decision on VGW’s motion to dismiss.