The AviaGames lawsuit is a federal class action, Pandolfi v. AviaGames, Inc., filed in November 2023 in the Northern District of California, alleging that the mobile gaming company behind Pocket7Games, Solitaire Clash, and Bingo Tour secretly used computer bots to rig cash tournaments it advertised as skill-based matches between real people. After AviaGames spent more than two years trying to force the case into private arbitration and lost at the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court, the case is now moving toward a jury trial.1SCOTUSblog. AviaGames Inc. v. Pandolfi
What the Lawsuit Claims
Plaintiffs Andrew Pandolfi of Texas and Mandi Shawcroft of Idaho say they paid entry fees believing they were playing head-to-head against other human players of similar skill. The complaint alleges AviaGames instead populated its cash games with bots and with “historical playthroughs,” replays of game data from earlier players. When one of those non-human opponents beat a paying user, the company allegedly kept the entry fee without paying a prize to anyone, giving AviaGames a direct financial stake in game outcomes despite public claims it had none.2CaseMine. Pandolfi v. AviaGames Inc., 23-cv-05971-EMC
Users who complained about suspicious opponents (mismatched profile names and photos, players who won without finishing a game) were told the opponents were “real players, not bots,” according to the complaint.3ClassAction.org. Pandolfi et al. v. AviaGames Inc. et al., Class Action Complaint The suit characterizes the whole operation as an “unapproved gambling enterprise,” arguing that once bots removed the skill element, the games were rigged games of chance. The plaintiffs allege users collectively wagered hundreds of millions of dollars under false pretenses.4Top Class Actions. Avia Class Action Alleges Human Players Are Actually Computer Bots
Legally, the case is brought under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.5ClassAction.org. AviaGames Hit With Class Action Over Alleged Use of Bots Law360 has described it as a $1 billion suit.6Law360. Gamers Battled AI Instead of Humans, $1B RICO Suit Says The proposed class covers anyone who lost money playing any of roughly 20 AviaGames titles, including Pocket7Games, Solitaire Clash, Bingo Clash, Bingo Tour, Bubble Buzz, and 8 Ball Strike.
Where the Bot Evidence Came From
The consumer plaintiffs did not uncover the bot allegations on their own. They emerged from discovery in a separate patent infringement suit that competitor Skillz Platform Inc. filed against AviaGames in April 2021. Skillz’s lawyers told the court they had obtained internal AviaGames documents showing that “every cash game offered by AviaGames in the U.S.” included a “guide with a robot” that “guarantees the winning rate in favor of AviaGames against its customers,” and accused the company of “matching gamers with robots to rig the games.”3ClassAction.org. Pandolfi et al. v. AviaGames Inc. et al., Class Action Complaint
AviaGames CEO and co-founder Vickie Yanjuan Chen initially testified under oath that the company did not use bots in cash games. On October 20, 2023, during a supplemental deposition and on the advice of newly retained criminal defense counsel, she invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.7GovInfo. Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc., Court Order She withdrew that invocation ten days before trial and sat for a renewed deposition, portions of which were played for the jury.8King & Spalding. Litigators of the Week — In Mobile Gaming Showdown, a Side-Battle Over ‘Bots’
In February 2024, a federal jury in San Jose found AviaGames had willfully infringed Skillz’s patent and awarded Skillz $42.9 million.9Reuters. Skillz, AviaGames Settle Patent Lawsuit Over Copycat Mobile Games The parties then settled in April 2024, with AviaGames agreeing to pay a total of $80 million: $50 million up front plus $7.5 million per year in royalties to Skillz for four years starting in March 2025.10SEC. Skillz Inc. SEC Filing, Settlement Details Reuters also reported that AviaGames had received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s office in New Jersey related to the bot allegations.
Who Is Being Sued
The complaint names AviaGames itself, co-founders Vickie Yanjuan Chen and Ping Wang, and two venture capital firms, ACME, LLC and Galaxy Digital Capital Management, L.P. The investors are labeled “RICO Investors” and are alleged to have fueled the scheme by repeating claims that AviaGames offered legitimate skill-based competition, boosting the value of their equity stakes. ACME has disputed that framing, stating it purchased $10 million in convertible debt rather than equity. The claims against the investor defendants were stayed while the arbitration appeal ran its course, and their pending motions to dismiss (and a personal-jurisdiction challenge from Galaxy) are expected to be taken up as the case resumes.11GovInfo. Pandolfi v. AviaGames Inc., Court Order on Investor Defendants’ Motions
Why AviaGames Could Not Force Arbitration
AviaGames’ central defense strategy was to push the case out of court and into private arbitration under clauses in its Terms of Service. In September 2024, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen denied the motion to compel arbitration and found the agreement unconscionable.12The Recorder. Judge Denies Mobile Gaming Company’s Motion to Compel Arbitration in Class Action
Two features drove the ruling. A “bellwether provision” required similar claims to be arbitrated in batches of 20, with each batch assigned to separate arbitrators and no new batch allowed to begin until every case in the prior batch had fully resolved. Because arbitrations typically take about 9.6 months each, the court found that with a large number of claimants the process could create delays measured in decades. A separate delegation clause required an arbitrator, rather than a court, to decide whether the arbitration agreement itself was enforceable, which the court found would subject even that threshold question to the same indefinite delays. The delegation clause was also unnumbered, untitled, and buried within 14 pages of “single-spaced, 8-point font in barely readable, light gray text,” which the court called procedurally unconscionable. The judge refused to sever the offending batching provision to rescue the rest of the clause.13CaseMine. Pandolfi v. AviaGames Inc., Amended Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable and applying California’s severability doctrine to refuse enforcement of the agreement’s severance clause.1SCOTUSblog. AviaGames Inc. v. Pandolfi Public Citizen, filing an amicus brief for the plaintiffs, argued the batching requirement was designed to obstruct consumer claims rather than deliver the speed the Federal Arbitration Act was meant to promote.14Public Citizen. Pandolfi v. AviaGames Inc. AviaGames then petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing the Ninth Circuit had violated the FAA’s “equal-treatment rule.” On May 18, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the petition without comment. Plaintiffs’ counsel Matt Tripolitsiotis of Burns Charest LLP said the plaintiffs “look forward to trying these claims before a jury.”15Morningstar. SCOTUS Denies AviaGames Certiorari on Arbitration Issues
A Separate Michigan Regulatory Action
On August 14, 2025, the Michigan Gaming Control Board issued a cease-and-desist letter to AviaGames and 14 other unlicensed online gambling operators, ordering them to stop offering services to Michigan residents. The MGCB found the operators had violated Michigan’s Lawful Internet Gaming Act, the Gaming Control and Revenue Act, and the state Penal Code by targeting residents without state authorization.16Michigan Gaming Control Board. MGCB Orders 15 Illegal Online Gambling Operators to Halt Services in Michigan That order is a state regulatory action against the company, not part of the federal class action, and does not itself provide compensation to players.
Where the Case Stands and What Players Should Do
As of mid-2026 the class action has been remanded to the Northern District of California and is moving toward discovery and a potential jury trial. No settlement has been reached, no claims process or payout mechanism has been set up, and potential class members do not need to take any action at this time.4Top Class Actions. Avia Class Action Alleges Human Players Are Actually Computer Bots If you spent money on Pocket7Games, Solitaire Clash, Bingo Tour, or another AviaGames title, keep records of your account, deposits, and losses in case a claims process is later established. AviaGames continues to operate and Vickie Chen remains CEO.17USA Today. AviaGames Celebrates 10 Years at GDC 2026