A federal judge based in New York has mandated that Papaya Gaming pay a hefty sum of $719 million to its competitor Skillz. This ruling also includes coverage for attorney fees and court expenses. The judgment comes after a jury found in April that the developer of Solitaire Cash was guilty of misleading advertising and breached consumer protection laws, negatively impacting Skillz’s business.
In this ongoing dispute between skill gaming platforms, Judge Denise Cote of New York’s Southern District Court stated on July 27 that Papaya must repay its unjust gains to Skillz as restitution for the financial damage incurred through its false advertising, in violation of the federal Lanham Act and New York’s General Business Law.
A jury verdict in April revealed that Papaya failed to reveal that users were often up against computer bots in real-money skill gaming competitions.
In addition to Solitaire Cash, Papaya also offers popular titles like Bingo Cash and Bubble Cash. Last fall, several ESPN personalities faced criticism for promoting Solitaire Cash, with Stephen A. Smith being the most notable example.
Court Findings
Skillz has established itself as a pioneer in the mobile skill gaming sector, allowing players to compete against each other for real money. Besides developing its own games, the Skillz platform enables third-party developers to distribute their offerings, reaching over 30 million engaged users who wager more than $100 million monthly.
Founded in March 2012 out of an attic in Boston, Skillz was joined by Israel-based Papaya in the skill gaming market in 2019.
Papaya quickly gained traction by providing faster matchmaking for users. Both Skillz and Papaya assert that they connect players based on comparable skill levels, but Papaya’s users often found instant matchups, while Skillz users frequently waited 10 minutes or longer.
Prior to Skillz launching the lawsuit, Papaya claimed that its users were competing against real human opponents. Trial evidence indicated that Papaya utilized two types of bots: liquidity bots to create instant matches and tailored bots designed to intentionally lose and keep players engaged.
“For example, a player on a losing streak might receive a ‘win’ to encourage them to participate in more tournaments. These tailored bots were involved in over 630 million Papaya tournaments, marking approximately one-quarter of the 2.6 billion tournaments hosted by Papaya between 2021 and 2024,” Cote wrote.
Some tournaments, consisting of 20 players, were found to include only a single human competitor against 19 bots. Cote noted that from 2021 to 2024, bots accounted for over 13 million entrants, while human participants totaled only 11 million.
Functioning similarly to a casino, Papaya reaped billions from real human players.
Responses from Skillz and Papaya
Following Judge Cote’s ruling, both Skillz and Papaya provided statements to Casino.org.
“We pioneered this industry and established its foremost company based on one principle above all: integrity,” remarked Skillz founder and CEO Andrew Paradise. “When our growth plateaued, investors assumed our advantages were merely a narrative. They were not. In a highly competitive market, Papaya could not fairly outpace us, so they resorted to using bots to simulate competition. This ruling rectifies that misconception.”
Conversely, Papaya expressed a different perspective on the ruling.
“We are disheartened by the verdict and are considering all possible avenues, including an appeal. Papaya remains dedicated to leading and advancing the mobile gaming industry with transparency and integrity, offering thrilling, skill-based fair competition to our players,” stated a Papaya representative.
Papaya additionally insists that it has ceased the usage of bots.