Date of Publication: April 25, 2026, 09:02h.
Updated on: April 25, 2026, 09:02h.
- Skillz has successfully obtained a $420 million verdict against Papaya Gaming
- A federal jury determined that Papaya misled consumers through the use of computer bots
Skillz has achieved a significant legal victory yet again.
Skillz stands as a premier platform for skill-based, competitive, real-money mobile gaming. The company enables developers to host their games within the Skillz ecosystem, which boasts over 30 million active participants and monthly prize pools exceeding $100 million.
With more than 14,000 game developers offering peer-to-peer experiences on Skillz, most follow guidelines that include “Fairness for All,” a unique technology ensuring balanced gameplay with real competitors.
Skillz argued in federal court that Papaya Gaming breached its platform guidelines by utilizing bots. This controversy, Skillz claimed, tarnished its brand and incurred losses reaching hundreds of millions of dollars.
Just this week, a federal jury in Manhattan sided with Skillz.
$420 Million Judgment
A jury from New York’s Southern District Court supported Skillz in its assertions that Papaya breached contractual terms and improperly included bots in its games.
The jury found that Papaya engaged in misleading advertising, violating the Lanham Act, which safeguards registered trademark owners from infringement and consumer confusion. Moreover, Papaya was held accountable for breaching New York General Business Law.
Notably, Papaya had enlisted celebrities like ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith, Mina Kimes, Kendrick Perkins, Dan Orlovsky, and Laura Rutledge to promote its games, including “Solitaire Cash.”
The court ruling awarded Skillz $420 million in damages, alongside $719 million in profits made by Papaya during its unlawful activities. The jury also suggested that Papaya compensate Skillz with $652 million in “cost-saving disgorgement.”
Skillz demonstrated in court that Papaya employed bots in its gaming systems, which is central to Skillz’s claims regarding false advertising, unfair trading practices, and the necessity for transparency within the skill-based gaming space. Skillz emphasized that Papaya orchestrated a prolonged campaign of deceit and misleading marketing that significantly harmed both Skillz and the skill-based gaming sector,” the company’s statement read.
In response, Papaya stated its intent to appeal the verdict.
“While we respect the jury’s decision, we are disheartened by the outcome. Papaya remains committed to upholding integrity and transparency as we aim to provide joyful, fair competition through skill-based gaming,” the company commented.
Papaya defended itself by asserting that it never claimed that every game or tournament would feature only human opponents.
The company argued that the use of bots does not render the games unfair, drawing parallels to computer chess games and other skill-based digital games where “simulated opponents accurately reflect human skill levels.”
“In tournaments involving multiple players, where skill level differs, it is natural for some players to win less frequently than they lose. Thus, in evenly matched competitions among ten players, each individual should realistically finish first just 10% of the time. This isn’t an ‘unfair’ situation; rather, it reflects the efficacy of Papaya’s matchmaking and the application of competitive skill,” the Papaya defense maintained.
Recent Triumphs for Skillz
Skillz’s latest court success against Papaya is its newest substantial win.
In 2024, Skillz secured a $42.9 million verdict when a federal jury in California’s Northern District found that AviaGames misled players by not pairing them with real competitors.
Avia contended that it had designed a novel technology that matched real players against “historical playthroughs,” which were previously recorded games played by actual participants. However, a jury concluded that Avia operated unfairly by knowingly pairing historical playthroughs against less skilled competitors.