
Identification of significant court cases
As of the date of the issuance of this report, the Company and/or its subsidiaries has become involved in a number of pending
litigations:
●
On March 8, 2023, a plaintiff filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Franklin County Alabama alleging that the
Company’s social casino games are unlawful gambling under Alabama law. The plaintiff withdrew the original
complaint without prejudice for procedural reasons, and, on September 14, 2023, re-filed an amended complaint. As
in the original complaint, the lawsuit seeks to recover all amounts paid by Alabama residents to the Company in
those games during the period beginning one year before the filing of the lawsuit (i.e. September 14, 2022) until the
case is resolved. The Company does not agree with the allegations and requests for relief made in the complaint and
believes that there are meritorious legal and factual arguments supporting the Company’s position. On November 1,
2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and on December 15, 2023, the Company filed a
motion to compel arbitration. On June 7, 2024, the judge denied the Company’s motion to dismiss and the Company’s
motion to compel arbitration. On July 17, 2024, the Company filed a notice of appeal. The Supreme Court of Alabama
held oral argument on March 5, 2025. On April 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of Alabama issued an order compelling
arbitration. On May 14, 2025, the state court stayed the case pending the outcome of the arbitration. On June 17,
2025, the plaintiff field a motion to lift the stay. On July 7, the court issued an order denying the motion to lift the stay.
July 23, 2025, the Company received a notice of the demand filed with American Arbitration Association from the
plaintiff. The case is proceeding in arbitration. The initial briefs of the parties have been exchanged on November 21,
2025. The company challenged the jurisdiction of American Arbitration Association over the dispute. On January 28,
2026, the arbitrator issued an order that American Arbitration Association has authority to adjudicate the dispute only
as to the users who have played the games on or before October 6, 2023. On February 25, 2026, the Company
received a notice of the demand filed with JAMS from the plaintiff. The demand filed with JAMS pertains to the users
who have played the games after October 6, 2023. In addition, on June 6, 2025, the plaintiff’s husband filed a class
action complaint in the Circuit Court of Franklin County alleging that social casino games published by the Company
constitute illegal gambling under Alabama law. On October 6, 2025, the case was removed to the federal court. On
October 29, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the state court. The Company plans to file an
opposition to the motion to remand by December 4, 2025. The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, demands recovery of the amount paid through purchases of virtual currency on Company’s games within
the six months preceding the filing of this complaint. The Company does not agree with the allegations and requests
for relief made in the complaint and believes that there are meritorious legal and factual arguments supporting the
Company’s position. As of the date of the issuance of this report, to the best of the Company's knowledge, the
litigation is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's operations, financial condition or cash flows.
●
On June 2, 2023, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the US Federal District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging: (a) that the Company’s social casino games are unlawful gambling under the laws of California, Illinois, and
potentially other US states; and (b) that the Company’s display of sale pricing in its social casino games constitutes
false advertising under the laws of California, Illinois and potentially other US states. The lawsuit purported to be a
nationwide class action, which also includes potential California and Illinois subclasses. The Company does not
agree with the allegations and requests for relief made in the complaint and believes that there are meritorious legal
and factual arguments supporting the Company’s position. On January 24, 2024 the Company and the plaintiffs have
signed an agreement to settle the case in exchange for the distribution to each class member of at least 375 virtual
diamonds within the Company’s games, and at least an aggregate total of 412.5 million virtual diamond, and USD
1,700 thousand in cash for attorneys’ fees, costs of claims administration, and named plaintiff incentive awards. The
Company also agreed in the settlement to make changes: (a) in game play, allowing players to engage in certain
forms of continuous game play; and b) in advertising practices. The settlement was subject to court approval and to
the Company’s option to cancel the settlement if 1,000 or more class members elect to opt out of the settlement. The
Court has recently rejected final approval meaning that the case is again to be actively litigated and the settlement is
ineffective. In March 2026 plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint adds Billionaire
Casino Ltd. And Huuuge Global Ltd as defendants in addition to Huuuge, Inc. The complaint also adds claims under
the RICO act, but is still based on allegations that the games were illegal gambling and falsely advertised. The
Company’s response is due in April. The Company created a provision in the amount of USD 1,700 thousand, out of
Huuuge, Inc.
Annual Report for the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2025
64