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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0285 (2026)

"Thing of value."

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
"Thing of value," as used in this chapter, means any money or property, any token, object or article exchangeable for money or property, or any form of credit or promise, directly or indirectly, contemplating transfer of money or property or of any interest therein, or involving extension of a service, entertainment or a privilege of playing at a game or scheme without charge.
[ 1987 c 4 s 22. Formerly RCW 9.46.020(21).]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · 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 8× “Therefore, Wilson alleges that Playtika's apps constitute gambling as defined by RCW § 9.46.0285 in violation of RCW § 4.24.”
Bullseye Distrib., L.L.C. v. Gambling Comm'n, 127 Wash. App. 231 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “¶24 Bullseye first argues that the ALJ should have used the definition of “consideration” in the PCOC statute instead of the definition of “thing of value” in RCW 9.46.0285. The Commission responds that the definition of “consideration” in RCW 9.”
Bullseye Distrib., LLC v. State, Gambling Com'n, 110 P.3d 1162 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “¶24 Bullseye first argues that the ALJ should have used the definition of "consideration" in the PCOC statute instead of the definition of "thing of value" in RCW 9.46.0285. The Commission responds that the definition of "consideration" in RCW 9.”
Wilson v. PTT, LLC, 351 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (W.D. Wash. 2018). · cites it 3× “Despite the fact that these coins cannot be redeemed for actual money, Wilson alleges that they are nonetheless valuable because they can be used to continue playing.”
Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc., 886 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2018). “Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0285 . Kater’s primary argument is that the virtual chips are a “thing of value” because they are a “form of credit .”
Benson v. Double Down Interactive, LLC (W.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 5× “The court reasoned that virtual chips that extend gameplay are a “thing 10 of value” under RCW 9.46.0285, making Big Fish Casino “gambling” under RCW 9.”
Larsen v. PTT, LLC (W.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 2× “In its motion, High 5 argued that Wilson’s claims depended 21 on him proving that: “(1) a High 5 virtual coin constitutes a ‘thing of value’ under 22 RCW 9.46.0285; (2) Wilson’s $1.99 purchase of High 5 virtual coins satisfies the definition of 23 ‘gambling’ under RCW 9.”
Larsen v. PTT, LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 2× “4 RCW 9.46.0285. The Kater court held that because virtual coins “permit a user to play the casino 5 games inside the virtual [casino,] .”
Benson v. Double Down Interactive, LLC (W.D. Wash. 2021). “In particular, Judge Leighton 13 14 found that the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of RCW 9.46.0285 in Kater v. Churchill Downs 15 Inc.”
Soucek (N.D. Cal. 2025). “Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0285 . narrow interpretation would be in tension with the broad and general language that the Penal Code provisions use to describe the types of games that are covered, which suggests an intent by the California Legislature to define “thing of value” more…”
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.