- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 29 Jan 2020 · read from the court record
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Appellate court
- Docket
- 18-36015
- Judge
- Gould, Nguyen, R. Collins (by designation)
- Filed
- not on record
- Type
- Appeal, social casino lawsuits
- Money
- No settlement fund or award on record
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
Appeal from D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00525-RBL (Judge Leighton). Unpublished memorandum of 29 January 2020 (submitted 28 January 2020) affirming Judge Leighton's denial of Double Down's motion to compel arbitration. Applying Wilson v. Huuuge, the panel held Double Down did not prove assent to its browsewrap Terms of Use: the terms were buried at the bottom of the App Store page and hidden behind a small settings menu in the game, a 'hide-the-ball exercise'.
What this case is about
Benson v. Double Down Interactive, LLC (9th Cir. No. 18-36015) is an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from district court No. 2:18-cv-00525-RBL (Judge Leighton). It asked whether Double Down could force social casino players into arbitration under its online terms.
Adrienne Benson and Mary Simonson were the plaintiffs-appellees. Double Down Interactive, LLC and International Game Technology were the defendants. The case belongs to the Social Casino Lawsuits category, and the issues were the Federal Arbitration Act and Washington contract formation.
Who is covered
The ruling affects players of the DoubleDown social casino app in Washington who face the app's Terms of Use. It is an appellate ruling on arbitration, not a class settlement.
Edelson PC acted for the plaintiffs. The company's wider record is in DoubleDown Interactive Lawsuits.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. The Ninth Circuit ruled on whether arbitration could be compelled, not on any damages, so no fund or claim process arose from this appeal.
The underlying class case is listed under related cases. Filing a settlement claim is free wherever a claim exists, but none exists in this appeal.
What the court decided
The Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished memorandum on 29 January 2020, submitted on 28 January 2020. The panel was Judges Gould, Nguyen and R. Collins (by designation).
It affirmed Judge Leighton's denial of Double Down's motion to compel arbitration. Applying Wilson v. Huuuge, the panel held that Double Down did not prove the players assented to its browsewrap Terms of Use.
The terms sat at the bottom of the App Store page and behind a small settings menu in the game, which the panel called a "hide-the-ball exercise".
As of 14 November 2026 the status is judgment.
Why it matters
The decision applies the Wilson v. Huuuge rule: hidden terms do not bind players. It kept a Washington social casino case in court instead of arbitration.
The Washington legal theory behind these cases is explained in Why Virtual Chips Count as Gambling in Washington State.
Related cases:
- Benson v. DoubleDown Interactive, LLC and International Game Technology: settled-final.
- Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc., 944 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2019): judgment.
Questions people ask
What is a browsewrap agreement?
Here it means Double Down's Terms of Use, placed at the bottom of the App Store page and behind a small settings menu in the game. The panel held Double Down did not prove assent to them.
Did the Ninth Circuit say virtual chips are gambling?
No. The memorandum decided only whether arbitration could be compelled, applying Washington contract formation rules.
Is this a published opinion?
No. It is an unpublished memorandum. For Washington matters, see Every Gambling Lawsuit in Washington.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: Adrienne Benson and Mary Simonson, plaintiffs-appellees
| Defendants | Double Down Interactive, LLC; International Game Technology |
|---|---|
| Class counsel | Edelson PC |
| Judge | Gould, Nguyen, R. Collins (by designation) |
| Claims |
|
If you need a lawyer, start with the court-appointed class counsel named above or the bar association referral service of your state or country. This site does not refer readers to law firms.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
1 dated step on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 29 Jan 2020 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
1 primary source (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Court document: cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| caption, panel, date, holding | cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
2 cases in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| DoubleDown Casino settlement | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington | Settlement finally approved |
| Huuuge arbitration ruling | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Judgment entered |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.