A major fight in the mobile gaming world has ended with a huge court order. Papaya Gaming, the company behind Solitaire Cash, has been told to pay rival Skillz $719 million, plus legal fees.
A federal judge in New York backed an April jury decision that found Papaya misled players by not clearly telling them they were often competing against computer bots instead of real people.
The ruling is a big win for Skillz, one of the early names in real-money skill gaming. Its platform lets players compete in mobile games for cash, either through its own titles or games made by other developers.
Papaya entered the market in 2019 and quickly became a serious competitor. Its games, including Solitaire Cash, Bingo Cash and Bubble Cash, were known for matching players almost instantly. That was a major contrast with Skillz, where players could sometimes wait 10 minutes or more to find an opponent.
But the court found there was a reason Papaya’s matches were so quick.
According to Judge Denise Cote, Papaya used two main types of bots. Some were used to fill games and tournaments so players could get an opponent right away. Others were designed to lose on purpose when a player had been struggling.
The idea was simple: give someone a win after a losing streak, keep them interested and encourage them to enter more paid contests.
Court records said these “tailored bots” appeared in more than 630 million Papaya tournaments between 2021 and 2024. That equals about one out of every four tournaments held by the company during that period.
In some cases, the numbers were even more striking. A 20-player tournament could reportedly include just one real person and 19 bots. From 2021 through 2024, bots made up more than 13 million tournament participants, compared with about 11 million human players.
Judge Cote ruled that Papaya’s conduct broke false advertising and consumer protection laws. The $719 million award represents profits the company was ordered to give up.
Skillz CEO Andrew Paradise called the ruling a major moment for the industry, saying Papaya could not compete fairly and used bots to fake competition.
Papaya disagreed with the decision. The company said it was disappointed, is considering an appeal and remains committed to fair and transparent skill-based games.
