Bots Battle Ends With Skill Gaming Giant Skillz Awarded $719 Million From Rival Papaya

A federal judge in New York has ordered Papaya Gaming to pay skill gaming rival Skillz $719 million, plus its attorney’s fees and court costs, after a jury in April ruled that the Solitaire Cash developer engaged in false advertising and violated consumer protections that harmed Skillz’s business.

In the latest legal development in the skill gaming bots battle between Skillz and Papaya, Judge Denise Cote, in New York’s Southern District Court, ruled on Monday (July 27) that Papaya direct its unjust profits to compensate Skillz for the financial injuries it incurred from Papaya’s false advertising and misleading consumers in violation of the federal Lanham Act and New York’s General Business Law.

The April jury verdict concluded that Papaya had failed to disclose that users were regularly competing against computer bots in head-to-head real money skill gaming matchups.

Along with Solitaire Cash, Papaya’s popular games include Bingo Cash and Bubble Cash. A slew of ESPN personalities took heat last fall for shilling Solitaire Cash, most notably Stephen A. Smith.

Court Opinion

Skillz is a pioneer of the mobile skill game industry, allowing users to play against one another for real money. Along with developing its own games, the Skillz platform allows third-party mobile gaming developers to host their products and gain access to more than 30 million active users who stake over $100 million a month.

Skillz launched in March 2012 from an attic in Boston. Israel-based Papaya arrived in the skill gaming space in 2019.

Papaya quickly became a dominant player, with users seeing much quicker pairing times. Both Skillz and Papaya claim to match players based on similar skill sets, but while Papaya users were instantly connected with an opponent upon initiating a game, users on Skillz often had to wait 10 minutes or longer.

Before Skillz brought its lawsuit, Papaya had maintained that users were playing against real human opponents. Evidence during the trial showed that Papaya used bots of two kinds—liquidity bots to create immediately accessible opponents and tournament fields, and a secondary bot used to purposely lose to keep a player hooked.

“For instance, a player who had a losing streak could be given a ‘win’ to motivate them to keep playing in more tournaments. These bots, called tailored bots, operated in over 630 million Papaya tournaments, or in roughly one-quarter of the 2.6 billion tournaments that Papaya hosted during the years 2021 to 2024,” Cote wrote.

Some 20-player tournaments were found to have included only one human player against 19 bots. Cote said that between 2021 and 2024, bots accounted for over 13 million participants, compared to 11 million human players.

Essentially acting as the house, Papaya won billions of dollars from real human players.

Skillz, Papaya Reactions

Skillz and Papaya both issued statements to Casino.org regarding Cote’s ruling.

“We founded this industry and built its biggest and best company on one value above all others: honor,” said Skillz founder and CEO Andrew Paradise. “When growth stalled, investors decided our moat was a story. It was not. In a winner-take-most market, Papaya could not beat us fairly, so it used bots to fake the competition we invented. This judgment sets the record straight.”

Papaya, of course, saw the decision differently.

“We are disappointed with the outcome and are pursuing all available options, including appeal. Papaya remains committed to continuing to lead and grow the mobile gaming industry with integrity and transparency, delivering exciting skill-based fair competition to our players,” a Papaya company statement read.

Papaya claims to have discontinued bot use.