Is Google Subpoena Email a Scam?

I spent thousands playing House Of Fun. Even money that was for food and rent.

Stupid me.

remove

"From: <lis-noreply@google.com>

Date: Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 7:07 PM

Subject: Subpoena Notice from Google (Internal Ref. No. 4011761)

Hello,

Google has received a subpoena for information related to your Google account. This email serves as notice to you that Google may produce information in response to the subpoenas unless you make a formal objection in court, as described below.

The subpoena was issued by the Plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit entitled SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLAYITKA LTD, an Israeli Limited Company, and CAESAR’S INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, 18-cv-05277-RSL. Google is not a party to this litigation. The subpoena generally seeks contact information for purposes of identifying class members and administering a settlement. You have not been subpoenaed and you are not a target of the underlying lawsuit. Note that you may also receive separate notices from the parties involved in this settlement.

Specifically, Google may produce the contact information associated with your Google account used to make purchases for the gaming apps entitled Vegas Downtown Slots, Slotomania, House of Fun, and Caesars Casino.

UNLESS YOU PROVIDE GOOGLE WITH A FILE-STAMPED COPY OF A MOTION TO QUASH OR ANOTHER TYPE OF FORMAL OBJECTION FILED WITH THE COURT BY 10 A.M. PACIFIC TIME ON OCTOBER 9, 2020, GOOGLE MAY PRODUCE INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR GOOGLE ACCOUNT TO THE PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO THEIR SUBPOENA.

TO THE EXTENT YOU FILE A MOTION TO QUASH, PLEASE INCLUDE ANY RELEVANT EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR PLAY ACCOUNT(S) TO ENABLE GOOGLE TO WITHHOLD YOUR INFORMATION FROM ANY PRODUCTION MADE IN THIS MATTER.

Unfortunately, Google cannot give you legal advice about this matter. Please do not reply to this message. Replies to this message are routed to an unmonitored mailbox. If you intend to serve Google with a motion to quash or another type of formal objection filed with the court, you can serve Google LLC through the appropriate office of Google LLC’s registered service agent, Corporation Service Company. If you have questions about the subpoena, you can contact an attorney or the attorney who served the subpoena at:

Todd Logan

Edelson PC

123 Townsend Street, Suite 100

San Francisco, California 94107

playtikasettlement@edelson.com

(800) 204-1088

Regards,

Google Legal Investigations Support

Google Internal Ref. No. 4011761"

Received this.

remove

"From: <lis-noreply@google.com>

Date: Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 4:06 PM

Subject: October 1 'Subpoena Notice' Email

Hello,

On October 1, 2020, we inadvertently notified you that Google may produce information about your Google account in response to subpoenas issued in connection with a lawsuit captioned SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLAYTIKA LTD, and CAESAR’S INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC.

Your information was not requested by any party and will not be released in response to the subpoenas in that case. There is no need for you to make a formal objection in court or take any other action.

We apologize for any inconvenience.

Regards,

Google Legal Investigations Support"

Received this.

remove

My mom got this email too. Who is this guy and what does he wants?

remove

Yeah, they fake mate, I keep getting them too

remove

Apparantly google made a mistake.

I received this follow-up just now:

Hello,

On October 1, 2020, we inadvertently notified you that Google may produce information about your Google account in response to subpoenas issued in connection with a lawsuit captioned SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLAYTIKA LTD, and CAESAR’S INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC.

Your information was not requested by any party and will not be released in response to the subpoenas in that case. There is no need for you to make a formal objection in court or take any other action.

We apologize for any inconvenience.

Regards,

Google Legal Investigations Support

remove

Received this:

"From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. Playtika Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

May 15, 2020

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05277-RBL (W.D. Wash. May. 15, 2020)Copy Citation

Download Treatment

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05277-RBL

05-15-2020

SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PLAYTIKA LTD an IsraelI limited company, PLAYTIKA HOLDING CORP., a Delaware corporation, and CAESARS INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant.

Search All Caselaw on Casetext. Get red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries and more.

Try Casetext For Free

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

ORDER ON DEFENDANT PLAYTIKA, LTD.'S MOTION TO CERTIFY ISSUES TO THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT DKT. # 99

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Playtika, Ltd.'s Motion to Certify Issues to the Washington Supreme Court. Playtika's Motion is nearly identical to the Motion brought by High 5, another casino game app-producing company, in Wilson v. PTT, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-05275-RBL, 2020 WL 1674151 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 6, 2020). The Court denied that Motion because High 5 had already raised the issues it wanted certified to the Supreme Court in its motion to dismiss. Id. This earlier decision serves as a guide for deciding Playtika's Motion.

Although federal courts may decide state law issues of first impression, they also have discretion to certify such issues to the state's highest court. Murray v. BEJ Minerals, LLC, 924 F.3d 1070, 1071 (9th Cir. 2019). Washington law allows certification of question to the Washington Supreme Court when "the local law has not been clearly determined." RCW § 2.60.020; accord, RAP 16.16(a). But the Ninth Circuit has made clear that the certification process is not to be "lightly" invoked. Murray, 924 F.3d at 1072 (quoting Kremen v. Cohen, 325 F.3d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir. 2003)). It requires "careful consideration" of the following factors: "(1) whether the question presents 'important public policy ramifications' yet unresolved by the state court; (2) whether the issue is new, substantial, and of broad application; (3) the state court's caseload; and (4) 'the spirit of comity and federalism.'" Id . at 1072 (quoting Kremen, 325 F.3d at 1037-38).

"There is a presumption against certifying a question to a state supreme court after the federal district court has issued a decision." Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008). Courts in this circuit and elsewhere have recognized that allowing parties to exploit certification as a de facto reconsideration or appeal would turn the district court's decision into "nothing but a gamble." Id . (quoting Perkins v. Clark Equip. Co., Melrose Div., 823 F.2d 207, 209-10 (8th Cir.1987)); see also Enfield v. A.B. Chance Co., 228 F.3d 1245, 1255 (10th Cir. 2000); Cantwell v. Univ. of Mass., 551 F.2d 879, 880 (1st Cir. 1977). In short, "[a] party should not be allowed a second chance at victory through certification." Hinojos v. Kohl's Corp., 718 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Thompson, 547 F.3d at 1065 (internal quotation omitted)).

Like High 5, Playtika seeks to certify the following question to the Supreme Court: "does playing an online video game that is free to play, allows in-app purchases, but awards no prize other than additional playing time constitute illegal gambling under Washington law?" Dkt. # 99 at 2. Playtika further breaks the question down into the following sub-parts: "(1) Are virtual coins 'things of value,' when players can play the game without paying for any coins, additional coins can be obtained without payment, and when the coins cannot be converted to cash, redeemed for prizes, or transferred to other users? (2) Does an in-app purchase of virtual coins constitute a 'bona fide business transaction,' a transaction expressly excluded from Washington's definition of gambling? (3) Is playing an online, casino-themed video game the type of 'illegal' activity RCW § 4.24.070 was designed to address, when the game offers no prize?" Id. at 2-3.

However, also like High 5, Playtika filed a Motion to Dismiss in which it raised nearly these exact same issues before this Court. See Dkt. # 40. Playtika sought to have Wilson's claims dismissed on the basis that its app-based games do not constitute "illegal gambling" because players do not gamble for a "thing of value," id. at 16, because the apps fall within the statute's "bona fide business transaction" exception, id. at 21, and because players do not "win" or "lose" anything, id. at 20-21, 22. For the same reasons as in PTT, 2020 WL 1674151, at *2, Playtika's arguments that the Washington Supreme Court should decide this issue of Washington law do not overcome the presumption created by the decision to litigate in federal court. The Court DENIES Playtika's Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 15th day of May, 2020.

/s/_

Ronald B. Leighton

United States District Judge"

remove

I contacted Google they never sent me this I was told its a scam and to mark it as such

remove

Class action law suit. I don't think it's for us

remove

is this legit? should we respond or is this a scam?

remove

Same here in Germany. I have played one of the games many years ago and I have no idea who Sean Wilson is.

remove

I got the exact same mail.

It seems to be legit though.

As I understand it this Sean Wilson has supoenaed google in order to find other people (that played the same game(s)) to join his class-action lawsuit against “ PLAYITKA LTD, an IsraelI Limited Company, and CAESAR’S INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company”.

I think this e-mail is a notification from google that google will share the contact information of people who have played these games unless they ‘formally’ object to this. I am guessing that if you live outside of the USA, that you will not be contacted by this Sean Wilson in any case. I am a bit surprised/disappointed though that google so easily would share my contact information :(

I found this article describing the law-suit:

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/four-gaming-companies-hit-online-gambling-lawsuits-free-play-casino-games/

remove

I got this too. Checked my Google app history and had in fact downloaded the game, years ago.

I searched and found a court ruling from 2018 that was pages long and explained the arguments on both sides...

Here is the first and last paragraph...

BACKGROUND 1033 Playtika Ltd. is an IsraelI company that markets a number of apps that allow players to partake in popular gambling games, such as slot machine, via Facebook and mobile. Complaint, Dkt. # 1, at 2, 6. Playtika's apps include Slotomania, House of Fun, Caesars Slots, and Vegas Downtown Slots, the first three of which Wilson has *1033personally played. Id. at 6, 10. All of these apps allow users to play gambling games with virtual "coins" that may be purchased in the apps after users run out of the initial free allotment. Id. at 7-8. Despite the fact that these coins cannot be redeemed for actual money, Wilson alleges that they are nonetheless valuable because they can be used to continue playing. Id. at 7-8, 14. Therefore, Wilson alleges that Playtika's apps constitute gambling as defined by RCW § 9.46.0285 in violation of RCW § 4.24.070. Wilson also alleges two derivative claims for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW § 19.86.010, and unjust enrichment. Id. at 15-18.

CONCLUSION Defendant Playtika's Motion to Dismiss and Strike (Dkt. # 40) is DENIED. Defendant Playtika's Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. # 43) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source...casetext.com

remove

Got this on a burner email, might have played some of the games but not recently.

Sean Wilson also doesn't ring any bells for me. I have never met him in my life.

remove

Same here from Europe, played such games 5 years ago.

remove

I have had one and am confused what for UK

remove

I got it too.

https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Wilson-v-Playtika-LTD-et-al/Ex-1-Class-Action-Settlement-Agreement/wawd-3:2018-cv-05277-00121-001

remove

I got exact same email. I don’t even play the games?

remove

I got this too, I have no idea what it is about

remove