Court Denies Aristocrat’s Request to Probe Plaintiffs’ Gambling Disorders
A federal judge in Australia has refused a request by gaming giant Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. to question class-action members about whether they have a gambling disorder, saying the move would lead to “self‑diagnosis” and yield unreliable results.
The Backstory Behind the Class Action
The class action accuses the Australian gambling giant, along with its subsidiaries Product Madness and Big Fish Games, of breaching the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. The plaintiffs argue that the company’s social casino apps simulate online casino games and allow users to spend real money via in-app purchases.
Online casino gaming is illegal in Australia, and the suit covers Australians who spent real money on in‑app purchases in social casino titles such as Heart of Vegas, Big Fish Casino, and Epic Diamond Slots between Dec. 22, 2017, and Dec. 12, 2024.
The Risks of Self-Diagnosis
Lawyerly reported last month that plaintiffs argued the request was “unfair” and could prompt “vulnerable members to self‑diagnose” their gambling behaviors. The court sided with that position, noting that forcing members to reveal potential gambling disorders before mediation could pressure them unjustly and undermine the process.
Aristocrat claimed that the information was relevant to liability and damages since knowledge of problem gambling among users could shape legal outcomes. But, the court held that probing into mental health or medical conditions before mediation was both premature and prejudicial.
A Similar Case in the US
Big Fish Fried The case echoes similar legal action taken against Big Fish in the US. In that case, a class action filed in the state of Washington alleged that the company’s social casino apps constituted illegal gambling under state law.
In 2020, the litigation culminated in a landmark settlement, with Aristocrat and its then-co-owner, Churchill Downs Inc., agreeing to pay a combined total of $155 million to resolve the claims.
The Verdict
Notably, the case determined that spending real money in virtual casino-style games, even without the possibility of cashing out winnings, could still amount to unlawful gambling.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this decision highlights the importance of protecting vulnerable users from self-diagnosis and ensuring that any investigation into potential mental health issues is done in a fair and unbiased manner. As we move forward with the mediation process, it will be crucial to prioritize the well-being of those involved.