## Facts

- Putative class plaintiffs used Visa and Mastercard credit cards to purchase credits (“chips”) at online casinos and lost money gambling.
- Plaintiffs sued card associations and issuing banks, alleging they knowingly processed unlawful internet gambling transactions.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants and online casinos functioned as a “worldwide gambling enterprise” facilitating illegal gambling through credit-card networks.
- Plaintiffs sought to avoid or recover credit-card debts and obtain damages based on alleged violations of the Wire Act and civil RICO.
- The actions were consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in a federal multidistrict litigation, and defendants moved to dismiss the federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether a complaint states a Wire Act claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a) without alleging bets or wagers “on any sporting event or contest.”
2. Whether plaintiffs stated civil RICO claims by adequately pleading predicate racketeering activity, a direct injury to “business or property,” and proximate causation under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
3. Whether plaintiffs may use federal criminal statutes as a basis to recover voluntary gambling losses and avoid credit-card debts incurred for online casino gambling.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions and dismissed the federal claims.
- The Wire Act claim was dismissed because plaintiffs did not allege sports-related wagering, and § 1084(a) was construed to reach only bets or wagers on sporting events or contests.
- The RICO claims were dismissed for failure to plead a cognizable injury to “business or property” proximately caused by the alleged racketeering; plaintiffs’ asserted losses were treated as stemming from their voluntary gambling decisions.
- The court rejected the effort to recharacterize gambling losses and resulting credit-card debts as recoverable civil damages under the pleaded federal theories.

## Legal Principles

- A Wire Act claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a) requires allegations involving transmission of bets or wagers “on any sporting event or contest”; non-sports online casino gambling falls outside the statute as applied here.
- Civil RICO requires a plaintiff to plead a direct injury to “business or property” and proximate causation between the racketeering conduct and the injury; attenuated causation and self-inflicted losses do not satisfy § 1964(c).
- Federal criminal statutes do not provide a general private vehicle for gamblers to recoup voluntary gambling losses or to nullify debts absent satisfaction of the statute’s elements and civil standing requirements.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed online gamblers’ Wire Act and RICO claims against credit-card networks and issuing banks, holding that the Wire Act theory failed absent sports-betting allegations and that civil RICO could not be used to recover voluntary gambling losses or avoid credit-card debts without a direct, proximately caused injury to business or property.


In re Mastercard Int'l Inc. Internet Gambling Litig., 132 F. Supp. 2d 468 (E.D. La. 2001)