Big Fish Casino False Sale Prices for In-App Purchases Class Action

The gambling app games Big Fish Casino and Jackpot Magic Slots advertise discounts and sales on in-game purchases that this class action claims are illusory. The complaint brings suit against Big Fish Games, Inc., its Vice-President of Growth, and its parent company Aristocrat Leisure Limited, alleging that their sales and discounts are illusory, because they are based on false “original” prices.

Two classes have been proposed for this action:

• The Big Fish Casino Class is all persons in California who, within the applicable statute of limitations, paid money for an in-game purchase in Big Fish Casino.
• The Jackpot Magic Slots Class is all persons in California who, within the applicable statute of limitations, paid money for an in-game purchase in Jackpot Magic Slots.

The Ninth Circuit has found Big Fish has engaged in illegal gambling operations under the state of Washington’s laws, but this California lawsuit calls the company out for something more commonly found in retail stores: false reference pricing.

The Big Fish Casino and Jackpot Magic Slots games are free to play, with the company making its money from in-app purchases. However, the complaint alleges that in the direct marketing to players, “Big Fish advertised false former prices to induce players into believing they must act quickly to take advantage of a limited-time sale price.”

These “sale” prices use strikethroughs of “original” prices along with statements like “SALE!” and “5.5X” and countdown clocks, the complaint alleges, to make players think they were being offered a special deal that will only be available for a limited time. But the complaint claims that the savings are false because the “original” prices are false.

The complaint alleges, “These special offers and sales ran for months or longer. But at no point … were these in-game items ever actually offered at the ‘original’ non-discounted price.” Neither do these “original” prices “reflect the prevailing market retail pricing for these virtual in-game items,” the complaint claims, “which have no real-world value and whose pricing is entirely determined by Big Fish.”

The complaint quotes the Federal Trade Commission as saying that false reference pricing is deceptive: “Where the former price is genuine, the bargain being advertised is a true one. If, on the other hand, the former price being advertised is not bona fide but fictitious … the ‘bargain’ being advertised is a false one; the purchaser is not receiving the unusual value he expects.”

California law has even more specific requirements for “original” prices, requiring that they be the prevailing market price for the preceding three months, or that the advertising state the date of the alleged former price.

According to the complaint, then, the comparative price advertising was “false, deceptive, misleading, and unlawful” and violates California advertising laws.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Deceptive Advertising, Deceptive Discount Offers, False Reference Pricing