Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01887/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01887-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 

---

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

Nos. 15-1885, 15-1887

KELLY SONNENBERG, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

AMAYA GROUP HOLDINGS (IOM) LIMITED, formerly known as

Oldford Group, Ltd., et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

JUDY FARHNER, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

TILTWARE, LLC, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Illinois, Nos. 3:13-cv-00227-DRH-SCW,

3:13-cv-00344-DRH-SCW — David R. Herndon, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED NOVEMBER 2, 2015— DECIDED JANUARY 15, 2016

____________________

Case: 15-1887 Document: 46 Filed: 01/15/2016 Pages: 6
2 Nos. 15-1885, 15-1887

Before BAUER, POSNER, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge. The four plaintiffs have filed between them two diversity suits, governed by the substantive 

law of Illinois, against a variety of persons and companies 

that host Internet gambling websites. They contend that the 

defendants owe them the money that two of the plaintiffs 

(Casey Sonnenberg and Daniel Fahrner) lost in gambling on 

the defendants’ websites. The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, precipitating these two appeals. Although both suits are in federal court under the 

Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), the district 

judge had not yet decided whether to certify the classes

when he dismissed the complaints, and no class-action issue 

is presented by the appeals.

An Illinois statute imposes criminal penalties on anyone

who “knowingly establishes, maintains, or operates an Internet site that permits a person to play a game of chance or 

skill for money or other thing of value by means of the Internet or to make a wager upon the result of any [such] 

game.” 720 ILCS 5/28-1(a)(12). It also punishes “any person 

who knowingly permits any premises or property owned or 

occupied by him or under his control to be used as a gambling place.” § 5/28-3. Another section, called the Illinois 

Loss Recovery Act, provides that “any person who by gambling shall lose to any other person, any sum of money or 

thing of value, amounting to the sum of $50 or more and 

shall pay or deliver the same or any part thereof, may sue for 

and recover the money or other thing of value, so lost and 

paid or delivered, in a civil action against the winner thereof.” § 5/28-8(a). The statute dates from an era of strong opposition in Illinois to gambling. See, e.g., Zellers v. White, 70 

Case: 15-1887 Document: 46 Filed: 01/15/2016 Pages: 6
Nos. 15-1885, 15-1887 3

N.E. 669, 672 (Ill. 1904). That era has ended, and the laws are 

gradually being relaxed. See, e.g., 720 ILCS 5/28-1(b) (listing 

exceptions to the prohibition on gambling); Illinois Riverboat Gambling Act, 230 ILCS 10/1 et seq.; Illinois Video Gaming Act, 230 ILCS 40/1 et seq.; cf. GAMBLEONLINE.CO, “Illinois Online Gambling,” www.gambleonline.co/usa/illinois/

(visited January 15, 2016).

Casey Sonnenberg and Daniel Fahrner claim that each 

lost $50 or more at Internet gambling sites operated by one 

or more of the defendants. But if a person entitled by § 5/28-

8(a) to sue the winner has not done so within six months of 

losing, then by virtue of another section of the Loss Recovery 

Act “any person may initiate a civil action against the winner” to recover “triple the amount” of the gambler’s loss.

§ 5/28-8(b) (emphasis added). Though neither Kelly Sonnenberg nor Judy Fahrner, the other two plaintiffs (who happen 

to be the mothers of Casey and Daniel), lost money—indeed 

neither gambled at any of the defendants’ sites—they seek to 

recover triple their sons’ losses under the “any person [may 

sue the winner]” provision. The sons cannot sue because 

they admit in their complaints that they failed to sue within 

six months of the losses that they sustained in gambling on

the defendants’ websites. They claim to have maintained accounts on the websites until 2011, the year the federal government shut down the sites (in April). But their lawsuits 

were not filed until July and August 2012—too late. See Bartlett v. Slusher, 74 N.E. 370, 372 (Ill. 1905); Kizer v. Walden, 65 

N.E. 116, 117–18 (Ill. 1902); Holland v. Swain, 94 Ill. 154, 157 

(1879).

The mothers’ claims are timely. Their problem (which 

would equally beset their sons’ suits, were those suits not 

Case: 15-1887 Document: 46 Filed: 01/15/2016 Pages: 6
4 Nos. 15-1885, 15-1887

time-barred) is that the defendants are not the winners of 

any game that any of the plaintiffs (or their sons) played.

The defendants are the gambling sites, not the persons who 

won from Daniel and Casey in a game hosted by the site 

(and the mothers didn’t even gamble at any of the sites). A 

winner would be a person whom a player had played with

and lost to. Ranney v. Flinn, 60 Ill. App. 104, 104 (1894); cf. 

Pearce v. Foote, 113 Ill. 228, 238 (1885); Reuter v. MasterCard 

Int’l, Inc., 921 N.E.2d 1205, 1214–16 (Ill. App. 2010). It’s true

that the sites rake off some of the money in the pot, and it is 

this that causes the plaintiffs to call the sites “winners.” But 

charging a fee for engaging in gambling is not the same as 

winning a gamble; a croupier who supervises a casino’s

poker game is not a gambler, let alone a winner. With some 

exceptions, such as playing blackjack or slot machines, the

player in a casino (or its online equivalent) places the money 

he is betting in a (figurative) pot. The host takes a share of 

the pot to defray the expense of maintaining the gambling 

site but has no stake in the outcome of the games played on 

the site.

Faced with this barrier to their claims under the Loss Recovery Act, the plaintiffs ask us to read a civil cause of action 

into the criminal provisions aimed at the owners and operators of illegal sites—a civil cause that would entitle the plaintiffs to damages measured by their losses. 720 ILCS 5/28-1, 

5/28-3. This might seem a reasonable supplement to a mere 

misdemeanor punishment. But among other objections to 

the suggestion, only the first violation is a misdemeanor; a 

second, third, etc. is a felony, §§ 5/28-1(c), 5/28-3, and so a 

private right of action is not necessary to assure a reasonable 

degree of compliance with the statute. See Metzger v. DaRosa, 

805 N.E.2d 1165, 1171 (Ill. 2004). Such a remedy would not 

Case: 15-1887 Document: 46 Filed: 01/15/2016 Pages: 6
Nos. 15-1885, 15-1887 5

be entirely superfluous, however. Even though the only loss 

of which the plaintiffs complain is a gambling loss that they 

could have recovered by suing the winner, a gambler would 

be reluctant to sue the winner if it were a friendly game. 

And hordes of new gamblers might be enticed to gambling 

websites if gamblers couldn’t lose any money there because 

the hosts of the websites would have to reimburse any losses

they incurred. (In other words, heads I (the gambler) win, 

tails you (the host) lose.) The threat of having to reimburse

all these eager gamblers-turned-plaintiffs could drive the 

gambling hosts out of business. But fortunately for the hosts,

Illinois courts are reluctant to imply a private right of action 

in one section of a statute if other sections expressly create 

such rights. See, e.g., id. at 1172. There is no reason to depart 

from that approach in a case like this one where the statute 

already provides adequate enforcement mechanisms.

The plaintiffs also invoke § 5/28-7, which declares gambling contracts null and void. But the plaintiffs have no contract with the defendants that they ask the court to void.

Creating legal remedies for gambling losses as a way to 

discourage gambling seems a lost cause, since the usual 

gambling “loss” is not a real loss and hence is not a real spur 

to litigation unless the game is rigged. A gambler knows that 

the money he puts in the pot is at risk. It is not a risk he has

to take; he takes it because he hopes to win the pot, or simply because he likes gambling or risk taking in general. If he 

loses $50 he may well say to himself “I’d rather have won, 

but $50 wasn’t too high a price to pay for a night of gambling, and en route to losing $50 I did after all win some nice 

pots and get compliments from the guys I was playing 

with.”

Case: 15-1887 Document: 46 Filed: 01/15/2016 Pages: 6
6 Nos. 15-1885, 15-1887

The judgment dismissing the suits is

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-1887 Document: 46 Filed: 01/15/2016 Pages: 6