AviaGames Lawsuit: Claims, Defendants, and Arbitration

The AviaGames lawsuit is a federal class action accusing the mobile gaming company of using computer bots to rig the outcomes of real-money games it marketed as fair, skill-based contests between human players. Filed in November 2023 in the Northern District of California as Pandolfi v. AviaGames, Inc., the case is now cleared to move forward on the merits after the U.S. Supreme Court declined on May 18, 2026 to review a ruling that kept AviaGames from forcing customer claims into private arbitration.¹

What Players Say Happened

AviaGames runs the Pocket7Games platform and apps including Solitaire Clash, Bingo Clash, and Bingo Tour. It advertises them as skill-based cash games where users wager real money against other real people of similar ability, and it has publicly said it has no financial interest in who wins or loses.²

The complaint tells a different story. Plaintiffs Andrew Pandolfi of Texas and Mandi Shawcroft of Idaho allege that AviaGames populates its cash games with bots rather than human opponents and uses those bots to control outcomes so the house wins. The complaint alleges that “every cash game offered by AviaGames in the US has a guide with a robot that guarantees the winning rate in favor of AviaGames against its customers.”³ The suit also alleges AviaGames deployed specialized “shark robots” programmed to target high-earning players.⁴ When a bot wins, the plaintiffs say, AviaGames keeps the prize money.

The Legal Claims

The complaint advances two categories of claims. The first is consumer protection: the plaintiffs allege AviaGames violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act by misrepresenting its games as skill-based, human-versus-human competitions.²

The second is federal racketeering. The plaintiffs bring claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, characterizing the operation as an illegal gambling enterprise sustained by fraudulent statements that lured players into wagering real money on games whose outcomes were predetermined.⁵ The proposed class is nationwide and covers anyone who lost money playing an AviaGames title.⁶

Who Is Being Sued

The defendants are AviaGames itself, co-founders and CEO Vickie Yanjuan Chen and Ping Wang, and two venture capital firms that backed the company: ACME, LLC and Galaxy Digital Capital Management, L.P. The plaintiffs allege the investor firms fueled AviaGames’ operations while repeating the “fair, skill-based” marketing on their own websites. ACME partner Hany Nada sits on AviaGames’ board, and partners from both ACME and Galaxy serve as board observers.⁷

ACME has disputed the plaintiffs’ characterization of its role, saying it never held equity in AviaGames and instead bought $10 million in debt through convertible promissory notes as part of a $40 million fundraising round. Proceedings against both investor defendants have been stayed while jurisdictional and arbitration questions are sorted out.⁷

The plaintiffs are represented by Edelson PC and Burns Charest LLP.⁸

Why the Case Isn’t in Arbitration

Before the class action could reach the merits, AviaGames tried to push customer claims into private arbitration under its user agreement. That agreement included a “batching” mechanism: if 25 or more customers filed similar claims, the claims would be arbitrated in groups of 20, and no new batch could begin until every case in the prior batch was fully resolved.

The district court refused to enforce the arbitration clause, and on August 27, 2025 the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The appeals court found the batching scheme “substantively unconscionable” under California law, concluding it “creates likely lengthy delays that chill consumer claims and operate asymmetrically” against the weaker party.⁹ It also found the agreement procedurally unconscionable because it incorporated arbitration rules the provider could change unilaterally.¹

Rather than striking only the offending provisions, the Ninth Circuit voided the entire arbitration clause, concluding AviaGames was engaged in “a systematic effort to impose arbitration on the weaker party.”¹⁰ Rehearing en banc was denied that October, and on May 18, 2026 the Supreme Court denied AviaGames’ petition for certiorari, leaving the ruling in place.¹¹

Where the Bot Evidence Came From

The consumer allegations lean heavily on documents surfaced in a separate patent lawsuit that rival gaming platform Skillz brought against AviaGames in 2021. During discovery, Skillz’s lawyers uncovered internal AviaGames communications they said showed executives knew about and directed the use of bots to rig games. The court in that case issued a crime-fraud exception order, finding AviaGames had engaged in fraud against both its customers and financial institutions.¹²

CEO Vickie Chen initially testified under oath in that case that AviaGames did not use bots in cash games. After Skillz’s lawyers produced evidence they said proved otherwise, Chen sat for a supplemental deposition on October 20, 2023 and invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination on the advice of her criminal defense attorney. The court found the invocation was made in good faith. Ten days before trial, Chen withdrew it and gave a new deposition, portions of which were played on video for the jury.¹²

On February 9, 2024, a federal jury in San Jose found that AviaGames willfully infringed Skillz’s peer-to-peer wagering patent and awarded $42.9 million in damages.¹³ The parties later settled for a total of $80 million, resolving the patent dispute but leaving the record of internal documents that now anchors the class action.¹⁴

Where the Case Stands Now

As of mid-2026, the class action is early. No class has been certified, no settlement has been reached, and no trial date has been set. With the arbitration fight over, the case can now move forward in federal court before Judge Edward M. Chen under case number 23-cv-05971.⁷

AviaGames continues to operate its platform. Its website lists active game events through June 2026 and shows no sign of a shutdown or restructuring.¹⁵ The proposed class covers anyone in the United States who lost money playing an AviaGames title, so players who spent real money on Pocket7Games, Solitaire Clash, Bingo Clash, Bingo Tour, or the company’s other cash games would fall within its scope if a class is certified.⁶

1
SCOTUSblog. AviaGames, Inc. v. Pandolfi
2
ClassAction.org. AviaGames Hit With Class Action Over Alleged Use of Bots
3
GamesIndustry.biz. AviaGames Sued for Use of Bots in Real-Money Skill-Based Games
4
NYU JIPEL. Angry Gamers: Developer Caught Using Bots in Disguise of Humans
5
ClassAction.org. Pandolfi et al. v. AviaGames, Inc. et al. Complaint
6
Top Class Actions. Avia Class Action Alleges Human Players Are Actually Computer Bots
7
GovInfo. Pandolfi v. AviaGames Court Order
8
Burns Charest LLP. Burns Charest News
9
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Pandolfi v. AviaGames, Inc.
10
Supreme Court of the United States. AviaGames Certiorari Petition
11
National Law Journal. Esports Company’s Bid to Arbitrate Consumer Class Action Fails as SCOTUS Rejects Cert Petition
12
King & Spalding. Litigators of the Week: In Mobile Gaming Showdown, a Side-Battle Over Bots
13
Bloomberg Law. AviaGames Owes $43 Million Over Mobile Gaming Patent
14
Bloomberg Law. Skillz Platform CEO Details Patent Settlement With AviaGames
15
AviaGames. AviaGames Official Website