A legal challenge has been filed against the e-commerce behemoth, making claims. Steven Horn, a citizen of Nevada, is suing Amazon on the grounds that the company is making money off of what he thinks are unlawful social casino games. 

You may play these social casinos for free and download them from Amazon, according to the class action lawsuit. Although players cannot win actual cash, they can buy virtual chips to play with. 

According to the lawsuit, social casino games are just as "extraordinarily profitable" and "highly addictive" as slot machines in Las Vegas. Regarding this, it takes issue with Amazon's involvement. Claiming knowledge of the games' illicit nature, the complaint states that it is enabling their download. 

International Game Technology (IGT) and its previous company, DoubleDown Interactive, were the targets of a comparable lawsuit in 2018. Legally, the social casino products made by IGT that included virtual chips were considered gambling in Washington state, according to the lawsuit. 

The lawsuit was settled for $415 million (£333.9 million/€383.7 million) in August 2022 by IGT and DoubleDown. 

Amazon ordered to repay "illegal" funds in lawsuit 
Legal action is being taken against Amazon with the goal of getting them to withdraw from social casino games. As an additional measure, it demands the return to players of any funds acquired "illegally" from these games. 

In all, thirty-four different social gaming brands are specifically mentioned in the complaint. Some examples of these games are Jackpot Master, Jackpot Party, Monopoly Slots—Casino Games, Lotsa Slots, Black Diamond Casino, and Quick Hit Slots. Big Fish Casino, a social gambling software that a Washington state court found to be unlawful a number of years ago, is also mentioned. 

A key component of social casinos, according to the lawsuit, is the combination of classic slot machines' addictive qualities with Amazon's ability to use big data and social network forces to target and take advantage of customers who are prone to addictive behaviours. 

The social casino applications simply aren't set up to run and make a killing off of these illicit games. Amazon is deeply intertwined with their business of pursuing, keeping, and collecting losses from gamblers who are addicted. 

"Amazon not only controls the distribution and promotion of social casinos within its store, but it also shares in a significant portion of the gamblers' losses, which it collects and controls." 

Amazon retains 30% of all bets. 
The complaint claims that in 2020, social casinos lost an estimated $6.00bn (£4.88bn/€5.59bn) due to gambling, using statistics from Statista. As the grievance further explains, this is the source of Amazon's revenue. 

Amazon allegedly keeps 30% of all bets on social casino games, according to the lawsuit. Contrast this with the 1–15% cut that brick-and-mortar casinos often take from slot machines when players wager real money. 

According to Statista's calculations, Amazon made $1.8 billion in 2020 from these games. 

According to the complaint, "the social casinos entered into a mutually beneficial business partnership" by using Amazon for both distribution and payment. Amazon obtains a 30% cut of each bet, raking in billions of dollars, in return for distributing the casino games, giving them useful information on its players, and collecting payments from customers. 

The goal (and effect) of this risky collaboration is for customers to develop an addiction to social casino apps, leading them to charge hundreds or even thousands of dollars to their credit cards. 

"Addiction to social casinos is associated with a wide range of non-financial harms, including but not limited to depression, divorce, and attempted suicide." 

Concerns regarding social casinos' legality 
While the majority of states have legalised social casinos, there is still some grey area. A Washington court's 2018 decision that casino apps are prohibited was referenced in the case. 

Churchill Downs and Big Fish Casino, a social casino, were mentioned in the Washington lawsuit. As a result of its classification as a "thing of value," the court ruled that playing with virtual chips on the casino's website can be considered gambling. 

The latest claim states that Amazon knew social casinos were unlawful, yet they still had a 30% financial interest in the upside by brokering the slot machine games, bringing customers to them, and acting as the bank. 

Because of this, Amazon might be held accountable for its role in an unlawful gambling enterprise and conspiracy.