11. The proliferation of internet-connected mobile devices has led to the growth of what are known in the industry as “free-to-play” videogames. The term is a misnomer. It refers to a model by which the initial download of the game is free, but companies reap huge profits by selling thousands of “in-app” items that start at $0.99 (purchases known as “micro-transactions” or “in-app purchases”).  12. The in-app purchase model has become particularly attractive to developers of games of chance (e.g., poker, blackjack, and slot machine mobile videogames, amongst others), because it allows them to generate huge profits. In 2017, free-to-play games of chance generated over $3.8 billion in worldwide revenue, and they are expected to grow by ten percent annually.1 Even “large land-based casino operators are looking at this new space” for “a healthy growth potential.”2  30. In or around February 2017, Plaintiff Wilson began playing Huuuge Casino through his Apple iOS device. After Plaintiff lost the balance of his initial allocation of free chips, he purchased chips from the Huuuge Casino electronic store.  32. Class Definition: Plaintiff Wilson brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of himself and a Class of similarly situated individuals, defined as follows: All persons in the State of Washington who purchased and lost chips at Defendant’s Huuuge Casino. The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.  33. Numerosity: On information and belief, tens of thousands of consumers fall into the definition of the Class. Members of the Class can be identified through Defendant’s records, discovery, and other third-party sources.  34. Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff’s and the Class’s claims, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: a. Whether Defendant’s online casino games are “gambling” as defined by 40. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.  41. Plaintiff, members of the Class, and Defendant are all “persons” as defined by 54. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.  66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.  67. Plaintiff and the Class have conferred a benefit upon Defendant in the form of the money Defendant received from them for the purchase of chips to wager at Defendant’s Huuuge Casino.  68. The purchase of the chips to wager at Defendant’s Huuuge Casino is and was beyond the scope of any contractual agreement between Defendant and Plaintiff and members of the Class.  69. Defendant appreciates and/or has knowledge of the benefits conferred upon it by Plaintiff and the Class.  I. Free-to-Play and the New Era of Online Gambling  Unjust Enrichment (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  Violations of Revised Code of Washington § 4.24.070 (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  Violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW § 19.86.010, et seq. (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) 