Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.46
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0237 (2026)

"Gambling."

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
"Gambling," as used in this chapter, means staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person's control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Gambling does not include fishing derbies as defined by this chapter, parimutuel betting and handicapping contests as authorized by chapter 67.16 RCW, bona fide business transactions valid under the law of contracts, including, but not limited to, contracts for the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or commodities, and agreements to compensate for loss caused by the happening of chance, including, but not limited to, contracts of indemnity or guarantee and life, health, or accident insurance. In addition, a contest of chance which is specifically excluded from the definition of lottery under this chapter shall not constitute gambling.
[ 2005 c 351 s 1; 1987 c 4 s 10. Formerly RCW 9.46.020(9).]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: Wilson v. Playtika, Ltd., 349 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (W.D. Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wilson v. Playtika, Ltd., 349 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (W.D. Wash. 2018). · cites it 5× “RCW § 9.46.0237. According to Playtika, its games involve "bona fide business transactions" because players merely pay for the privilege of entertainment.”
Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc., 886 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “See Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0237 . The panel held that plaintiff Cheryl Kater stated a cause of action under Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act where she alleged that she lost over $1,000 worth of virtual chips while playing Big Fish Casino, and she could recover the value of…”
Wilson v. PTT, LLC, 351 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (W.D. Wash. 2018). · cites it 3× “RCW 9.46.0237. According to High 5, its games involve "bona fide business transactions" because players merely pay for the privilege of entertainment.”
Internet Cmty. v. State Gambling Com'n, 238 P.3d 1163 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 4× “Betcha filed an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, seeking a ruling that its operations did not violate state gambling laws. Both Betcha and the Commission filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted in favor of the State.”
Internet Cmty. & Ent. Corp. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 169 Wash. 2d 687 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 4× “Both Betcha and the Commission filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted in favor of the State.”
Bullseye Distrib., L.L.C. v. Gambling Comm'n, 127 Wash. App. 231 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “” RCW 9.46.0237. Under RCW 9.46.0241, a “gambling device” is: (1) Any device or mechanism the operation of which a right to money, credits, deposits or other things of value may be created, in return for a consideration, as the result of the operation of an element of chance,…”
Bullseye Distrib., LLC v. State, Gambling Com'n, 110 P.3d 1162 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “0241, a "gambling device" is: (1) Any device or mechanism the operation of which a right to money, credits, deposits or other things of value may be created, in return for a consideration, as the result of the operation of an element of chance, including, but not limited to slot…”
Rousso v. State, 239 P.3d 1084 (Wash. 2010). “46 RCW, see RCW 9.46.0237, and is treated uniquely among other forms of wagering under federal law, see 15 U.”
Rousso v. State, 170 Wash. 2d 70 (Wash. 2010). “46 RCW, see RCW 9.46.0237, and is treated uniquely among other forms of wagering under federal law, see 15 U.”
Internet Comm. & Ent. Corp. v. State, 201 P.3d 1045 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “com's website are engaged in "`[g]ambling'" as defined in RCW 9.46.0237; (2) Betcha.com's website promotes and facilitates gambling, and in doing so it transmits and receives gambling information by means of the Internet in violation of RCW 9.”
Internet Cmty. & Ent. Corp. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 148 Wash. App. 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “com’s web site are engaged in “ ‘[g] ambling’ ” as defined in RCW 9.46.0237; (2) Betcha.com’s web site promotes and facilitates gambling, and in doing so it transmits and receives gambling information by means of the Internet in violation of RCW 9.”
Larsen v. PTT, LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 5× “” RCW 4.24.070. Washington law 17 defines gambling as staking or risking “something of value” on the outcome of a contest of 18 chance not under the wagerer’s control, in the “understanding that the person .”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.