A US District Court jury in the Southern District of New York has awarded skill-based gaming platform Skillz $420 million in damages against Papaya Gaming, the developer of Solitaire Cash. The verdict, returned the week of April 25, 2026, found Papaya liable on three claims: violation of contract terms over the use of computer bots, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and violation of New York General Business Law.

Solitaire Cash has been heavily promoted by ESPN personalities including Stephen A. Smith, Mina Kimes, Kendrick Perkins, Dan Orlovsky, and Laura Rutledge. Skillz successfully argued at trial that the game’s “competitive” matchups were not, in fact, against real players.

The Bot Allegation

Skillz’s core claim was that Papaya populated its Solitaire Cash matchups with computer bots while marketing the platform as a real-player skill-based competition. Under Skillz’s reading of the contract terms governing the skill-based gaming category, bot use is prohibited, and the marketing positioning amounts to false advertising under federal and New York law.

A Skillz spokesperson said in the company’s post-verdict statement: “Skillz proved at trial that Papaya used bots in its games, which is the issue at the core of Skillz’s claims around false advertising, deceptive trade practices and transparency in the skill-based gaming industry.”

Skillz operates a competitive skill-gaming platform that hosts more than 14,000 third-party game developers and reports 30 million-plus active players across its catalogue.

ESPN-Promoted Marketing

The marketing contracts that connected Solitaire Cash to ESPN talent are not directly connected to the case, but the ESPN-talent endorsements are the most public face of Papaya’s customer-acquisition strategy. Stephen A. Smith, Mina Kimes, Kendrick Perkins, Dan Orlovsky, and Laura Rutledge all featured in Solitaire Cash advertising during the period the bot use is alleged to have occurred.

The judgement does not directly affect those endorsement contracts, but it does cast retrospective doubt on the product positioning each personality was promoting. Industry observers cited in coverage have noted the verdict is likely to reshape how skill-based gaming apps disclose their use of automated opponents.

Papaya’s Response

Papaya Gaming has stated publicly that it plans to appeal the verdict and maintains that its games are fair despite the use of computer-generated opponents. The company’s defence at trial included an argument that the use of bots in skill-based gaming is industry standard and that the contract terms Skillz cited are being read more strictly than the practical industry norm.

The appeal will be filed in the Second Circuit. No timeline has been published for the appeals process.

Broader Industry Context

The skill-based gaming category sits in a regulatory grey zone between traditional video gaming, social casino apps, and real-money sweepstakes casinos. Skill-based platforms have historically argued they fall outside gambling jurisdiction because outcomes depend on player skill rather than chance, but the bot question challenges that framing, since a match against a bot is not a match between two skilled players.

A $420 million judgement is one of the largest awards in skill-based gaming history. Skillz’s litigation playbook is now likely to be cited in similar cases involving other skill-based platforms that have faced bot-use accusations.

The next data point to watch is whether the FTC or any state attorney general opens a formal consumer-protection inquiry into Papaya or other skill-based gaming apps, separate from the Skillz private litigation. The verdict does not by itself trigger regulatory action, but it does establish a fact pattern that consumer-protection regulators commonly follow.