Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation We are involved in various legal proceedings, including those discussed below. We record an accrual for legal contingencies when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated (although, as discussed below, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the accrued liability). We evaluate our accruals for legal contingencies at least quarterly and, as appropriate, establish new accruals or adjust existing accruals to reflect (1) the facts and circumstances known to us at the time, including information regarding negotiations, settlements, rulings and other relevant events and developments, (2) the advice and analyses of counsel and (3) the assumptions and judgment of management. Legal costs associated with our legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. We had accrued liabilities of $3.7 million and $4.7 million for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Substantially all of our legal contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Consequently, the ultimate outcomes of our legal contingencies could result in losses in excess of amounts we have accrued. We may be unable to estimate a range of possible losses for some matters pending against us or our subsidiaries, even when the amount of damages claimed against us or our subsidiaries is stated because, among other things: (1) the claimed amount may be exaggerated or unsupported; (2) the claim may be based on a novel legal theory or involve a large number of parties; (3) there may be uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class; (4) there may be uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (5) the matter may not have progressed sufficiently through discovery or there may be significant factual or legal issues to be resolved or developed; and/or (6) there may be uncertainty as to the enforceability of legal judgments and outcomes in certain jurisdictions. Other matters have progressed sufficiently that we are able to estimate a range of possible loss. For those legal contingencies disclosed below, and those related to the previously disclosed settlement agreement entered into in February 2015 with SNAI S.p.a. (“SNAI”), as to which a loss is reasonably possible, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, and for which we are able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current estimated range is up to approximately $13.7 million in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) related to those legal contingencies. This aggregate range represents management’s estimate of additional possible loss in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) with respect to these matters based on currently available information, including any damages claimed by the plaintiffs, and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and inherent uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, management may have only preliminary, incomplete, or inaccurate information about the facts underlying a claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties, regulators, indemnitors or co‑defendants, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that management had not accounted for in its estimate because it had considered that outcome to be remote. Furthermore, as noted above, the aggregate range does not include any matters for which we are not able to estimate a range of possible loss. Accordingly, the estimated aggregate range of possible loss does not represent our maximum loss exposure. Any such losses could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. The legal proceedings underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Colombia litigation Our subsidiary, SGI, owned a minority interest in Wintech de Colombia S.A., or Wintech (now liquidated), which formerly operated the Colombian national lottery under a contract with Empresa Colombiana de Recursos para la Salud, S.A. (together with its successors, "Ecosalud"), an agency of the Colombian government. The contract provided for a penalty against Wintech, SGI and the other shareholders of Wintech of up to $5.0 million if certain levels of lottery sales were not achieved. In addition, SGI delivered to Ecosalud a $4.0 million surety bond as a further guarantee of performance under the contract. Wintech started the instant lottery in Colombia but, due to difficulties beyond its control, including, among other factors, social and political unrest in Colombia, frequently interrupted telephone service and power outages, and competition from another lottery being operated in a province of Colombia that we believe was in violation of Wintech’s exclusive license from Ecosalud, the projected sales level was not met for the year ended June 30, 1993. In 1993, Ecosalud issued a resolution declaring that the contract was in default. In 1994, Ecosalud issued a liquidation resolution asserting claims for compensation and damages against Wintech, SGI and other shareholders of Wintech for, among other things, realization of the full amount of the penalty, plus interest, and the amount of the bond. SGI filed separate actions opposing each resolution with the Tribunal Contencioso of Cundinamarca in Colombia (the “Tribunal”), which upheld both resolutions. SGI appealed each decision to the Council of State. In May 2012, the Council of State upheld the contract default resolution, which decision was notified to us in August 2012. In October 2013, the Council of State upheld the liquidation resolution, which decision was notified to us in December 2013. In July 1996, Ecosalud filed a lawsuit against SGI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia asserting many of the same claims asserted in the Colombia proceedings, including breach of contract, and seeking damages. In March 1997, the District Court dismissed Ecosalud’s claims. Ecosalud appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision in 1998. In June 1999, Ecosalud filed a collection proceeding against SGI to enforce the liquidation resolution and recover the claimed damages. In May 2013, the Tribunal denied SGI’s merit defenses to the collection proceeding and issued an order of payment of approximately 90 billion Colombian pesos, or approximately $30.2 million, plus default interest (potentially accrued since 1994 at a 12% statutory interest rate). SGI has filed an appeal to the Council of State, which appeal has stayed the payment order. SGI believes it has various defenses, including on the merits, against Ecosalud’s claims. Although we believe these claims will not result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position, it is not feasible to predict the final outcome, and we cannot assure that these claims will not ultimately be resolved adversely to us or result in material liability. SNAI litigation On April 16, 2012, certain VLTs operated by SNAI in Italy and supplied by Barcrest Group Limited ("Barcrest") erroneously printed what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets with a face amount in excess of €400.0 million. SNAI has stated, and system data confirms, that no jackpots were actually won on that day. The terminals were deactivated by the Italian regulatory authority. Following the incident, we understand that the Italian regulatory authority revoked the certification of the version of the gaming system that Barcrest provided to SNAI and fined SNAI €1.5 million, but determined to not revoke SNAI’s concession to operate VLTs in Italy. In October 2012, SNAI filed a lawsuit in the Court of First Instance of Rome in Italy against Barcrest and The Global Draw Limited (“Global Draw”), our subsidiary which acquired Barcrest from IGT‑UK Group Limited, a subsidiary of IGT, claiming liability based on breach of contract and tort. The lawsuit sought to terminate SNAI’s agreement with Barcrest and damages arising from the deactivation of the terminals, including among other things, lost profits, expenses and costs, potential awards to players who have sought to enforce what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets, compensation for lost profits sought by managers of the gaming locations where SNAI VLTs supplied by Barcrest were installed, damages to commercial reputation and any future damages arising from SNAI’s potential loss of its concession or inability to obtain a new concession. In September 2013, Global Draw brought an action against IGT‑UK Group Limited and IGT in the High Court of Justice (Commercial Court) in London, England seeking indemnification for liability arising out of the April 2012 incident under the agreement pursuant to which Barcrest was acquired from IGT‑UK Group and addressing other ancillary matters. The action against IGT was resolved in May 2015, pursuant to a settlement agreement in which neither party admitted liability. The settlement did not have a material impact on our results of operations. In February 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with SNAI that provides, among other things, for us to make a €25.0 million upfront payment to SNAI, which payment was made in February 2015, and to indemnify SNAI against certain potential future losses. In connection with the settlement, the parties’ pending claims in the Court of First Instance of Rome were dismissed on February 19, 2015. In May 2015, certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London filed a complaint against the Company, Barcrest and Global Draw in the Supreme Court of the State of New York seeking a declaratory judgment that such underwriters do not owe insurance coverage for the matters that are the subject of the settlement agreement with SNAI. In May 2015, the Company filed its counterclaims and also filed a third-party complaint against three excess insurers. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims. The excess insurers filed a similar motion to dismiss in July 2015. In June 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with the underwriters and excess insurers, pursuant to which the Supreme Court of the State of New York dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice in July 2016. Shuffle Tech matter In April 2015, Shuffle Tech International, LLC, Aces Up Gaming, Inc. and Poydras-Talrick Holdings LLC brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, Bally and Bally Gaming, Inc., alleging monopolization of the market for card shufflers in violation of federal antitrust laws, fraudulent procurement of patents on card shufflers, unfair competition and deceptive trade practices. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants used certain shuffler patents in a predatory manner to create and maintain a monopoly in the relevant shuffler market. The plaintiffs sought no less than $100.0 million in compensatory damages; treble damages; and injunctive and declaratory relief. In June 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On August 7, 2018, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs $105.0 million in compensatory damages, which was subject to trebling, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. We believe the jury reached the wrong result, and on September 4, 2018, the defendants sought review in the trial court of both the finding of liability and the damages award. On December 13, 2018, the defendants announced that they reached a settlement in the Shuffle Tech matter, and that as part of the settlement, we paid the plaintiffs $151.5 million, which represents 45% of the $105.0 million in compensatory damages awarded by the jury on August 7, 2018 which was subject to trebling, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. As part of the settlement, on December 24, 2018, the trial court entered an order vacating and striking the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict, denying all pending motions and petitions as moot, and dismissing the Shuffle Tech matter with prejudice. While this settlement resolves the disputed claims asserted in the Shuffle Tech matter, the defendants have not admitted, and continue to deny, any liability. Washington State Matter On April 17, 2018, a plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint, Fife v. Scientific Games Corp., against SGC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual coins playing SGC's online social casino games, including but not limited to Jackpot PartyCasino and Gold Fish Casino. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington’s Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington’s consumer protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified money damages (including treble damages as appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and/or declaratory relief. On July 2, 2018, SGC filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, which the trial court denied on December 18, 2018. SGC filed its answer to the putative class action complaint on January 18, 2019. Due to the early nature of this litigation, we are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. Raqqa Matter On May 4, 2018, plaintiffs Raqqa, Inc. Pittsburg Liquors, Inc., Omdev, Inc., Om Riya, Inc., E and B Liquors, Inc., Michael Cairo, and Jason Van Lente (collectively, “plaintiffs”) filed a putative class action complaint against Northstar Lottery Group LLC, IGT Global Solutions Corporation, and Scientific Games International, Inc. (collectively, “defendants”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In their complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent two putative classes of persons: (1) all persons who were or are parties to a contract to sell at retail Illinois Lottery instant game tickets at any time between July 1, 2011 and the present; and (2) all natural persons who purchased one or more Illinois Lottery instant game tickets at any time between July 1, 2011 and the present. The complaint alleges that Northstar Lottery Group LLC discontinued certain Illinois Lottery instant game tickets before all grand prizes were awarded, and further alleges that those discontinuations caused economic harm to lottery players, and to lottery retailers who receive commissions on winning tickets. The complaint asserts claims for alleged tortious interference with contract, alleged tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, alleged common law fraud, alleged violation of Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, alleged unjust enrichment and alleged civil conspiracy. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and the award of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice, which is fully-briefed and pending before the trial court. Due to the early nature of this litigation, we are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

Litigation

We are involved in various legal proceedings, including those discussed below. We record an accrual for legal contingencies when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated (although, as discussed below, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the accrued liability). We evaluate our accruals for legal contingencies at least quarterly and, as appropriate, establish new accruals or adjust existing accruals to reflect (1) the facts and circumstances known to us at the time, including information regarding negotiations, settlements, rulings and other relevant events and developments, (2) the advice and analyses of counsel and (3) the assumptions and judgment of management. Legal costs associated with our legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. We had accrued liabilities of $3.7 million and $4.7 million for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

Substantially all of our legal contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Consequently, the ultimate outcomes of our legal contingencies could result in losses in excess of amounts we have accrued. We may be unable to estimate a range of possible losses for some matters pending against us or our subsidiaries, even when the amount of damages claimed against us or our subsidiaries is stated because, among other things: (1) the claimed amount may be exaggerated or unsupported; (2) the claim may be based on a novel legal theory or involve a large number of parties; (3) there may be uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class; (4) there may be uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (5) the matter may not have progressed sufficiently through discovery or there may be significant factual or legal issues to be resolved or developed; and/or (6) there may be uncertainty as to the enforceability of legal judgments and outcomes in certain jurisdictions. Other matters have progressed sufficiently that we are able to estimate a range of possible loss. For those legal contingencies disclosed below, and those related to the previously disclosed settlement agreement entered into in February 2015 with SNAI S.p.a. (“SNAI”), as to which a loss is reasonably possible, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, and for which we are able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current estimated range is up to approximately $13.7 million in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) related to those legal contingencies. This aggregate range represents management’s estimate of additional possible loss in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) with respect to these matters based on currently available information, including any damages claimed by the plaintiffs, and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and inherent uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, management may have only preliminary, incomplete, or inaccurate information about the facts underlying a claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties, regulators, indemnitors or co‑defendants, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that management had not accounted for in its estimate because it had considered that outcome to be remote. Furthermore, as noted above, the aggregate range does not include any matters for which we are not able to estimate a range of possible loss. Accordingly, the estimated aggregate range of possible loss does not represent our maximum loss exposure. Any such losses could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. The legal proceedings underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate.

Colombia litigation

Our subsidiary, SGI, owned a minority interest in Wintech de Colombia S.A., or Wintech (now liquidated), which formerly operated the Colombian national lottery under a contract with Empresa Colombiana de Recursos para la Salud, S.A. (together with its successors, "Ecosalud"), an agency of the Colombian government. The contract provided for a penalty against Wintech, SGI and the other shareholders of Wintech of up to $5.0 million if certain levels of lottery sales were not achieved. In addition, SGI delivered to Ecosalud a $4.0 million surety bond as a further guarantee of performance under the contract. Wintech started the instant lottery in Colombia but, due to difficulties beyond its control, including, among other factors, social and political unrest in Colombia, frequently interrupted telephone service and power outages, and competition from another lottery being operated in a province of Colombia that we believe was in violation of Wintech’s exclusive license from Ecosalud, the projected sales level was not met for the year ended June 30, 1993.

In 1993, Ecosalud issued a resolution declaring that the contract was in default. In 1994, Ecosalud issued a liquidation resolution asserting claims for compensation and damages against Wintech, SGI and other shareholders of Wintech for, among other things, realization of the full amount of the penalty, plus interest, and the amount of the bond. SGI filed separate actions opposing each resolution with the Tribunal Contencioso of Cundinamarca in Colombia (the “Tribunal”), which upheld both resolutions. SGI appealed each decision to the Council of State. In May 2012, the Council of State upheld the contract default resolution, which decision was notified to us in August 2012. In October 2013, the Council of State upheld the liquidation resolution, which decision was notified to us in December 2013.

In July 1996, Ecosalud filed a lawsuit against SGI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia asserting many of the same claims asserted in the Colombia proceedings, including breach of contract, and seeking damages. In March 1997, the District Court dismissed Ecosalud’s claims. Ecosalud appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision in 1998.

In June 1999, Ecosalud filed a collection proceeding against SGI to enforce the liquidation resolution and recover the claimed damages. In May 2013, the Tribunal denied SGI’s merit defenses to the collection proceeding and issued an order of payment of approximately 90 billion Colombian pesos, or approximately $30.2 million, plus default interest (potentially accrued since 1994 at a 12% statutory interest rate). SGI has filed an appeal to the Council of State, which appeal has stayed the payment order.

SGI believes it has various defenses, including on the merits, against Ecosalud’s claims. Although we believe these claims will not result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position, it is not feasible to predict the final outcome, and we cannot assure that these claims will not ultimately be resolved adversely to us or result in material liability.

SNAI litigation

On April 16, 2012, certain VLTs operated by SNAI in Italy and supplied by Barcrest Group Limited ("Barcrest") erroneously printed what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets with a face amount in excess of €400.0 million. SNAI has stated, and system data confirms, that no jackpots were actually won on that day. The terminals were deactivated by the Italian regulatory authority. Following the incident, we understand that the Italian regulatory authority revoked the certification of the version of the gaming system that Barcrest provided to SNAI and fined SNAI €1.5 million, but determined to not revoke SNAI’s concession to operate VLTs in Italy.

In October 2012, SNAI filed a lawsuit in the Court of First Instance of Rome in Italy against Barcrest and The Global Draw Limited (“Global Draw”), our subsidiary which acquired Barcrest from IGT‑UK Group Limited, a subsidiary of IGT, claiming liability based on breach of contract and tort. The lawsuit sought to terminate SNAI’s agreement with Barcrest and damages arising from the deactivation of the terminals, including among other things, lost profits, expenses and costs, potential awards to players who have sought to enforce what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets, compensation for lost profits sought by managers of the gaming locations where SNAI VLTs supplied by Barcrest were installed, damages to commercial reputation and any future damages arising from SNAI’s potential loss of its concession or inability to obtain a new concession.

In September 2013, Global Draw brought an action against IGT‑UK Group Limited and IGT in the High Court of Justice (Commercial Court) in London, England seeking indemnification for liability arising out of the April 2012 incident under the agreement pursuant to which Barcrest was acquired from IGT‑UK Group and addressing other ancillary matters. The action against IGT was resolved in May 2015, pursuant to a settlement agreement in which neither party admitted liability. The settlement did not have a material impact on our results of operations.

In February 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with SNAI that provides, among other things, for us to make a €25.0 million upfront payment to SNAI, which payment was made in February 2015, and to indemnify SNAI against certain potential future losses. In connection with the settlement, the parties’ pending claims in the Court of First Instance of Rome were dismissed on February 19, 2015.

In May 2015, certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London filed a complaint against the Company, Barcrest and Global Draw in the Supreme Court of the State of New York seeking a declaratory judgment that such underwriters do not owe insurance coverage for the matters that are the subject of the settlement agreement with SNAI. In May 2015, the Company filed its counterclaims and also filed a third-party complaint against three excess insurers. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims. The excess insurers filed a similar motion to dismiss in July 2015. In June 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with the underwriters and excess insurers, pursuant to which the Supreme Court of the State of New York dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice in July 2016.

Shuffle Tech matter

In April 2015, Shuffle Tech International, LLC, Aces Up Gaming, Inc. and Poydras-Talrick Holdings LLC brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, Bally and Bally Gaming, Inc., alleging monopolization of the market for card shufflers in violation of federal antitrust laws, fraudulent procurement of patents on card shufflers, unfair competition and deceptive trade practices. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants used certain shuffler patents in a predatory manner to create and maintain a monopoly in the relevant shuffler market. The plaintiffs sought no less than $100.0 million in compensatory damages; treble damages; and injunctive and declaratory relief. In June 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On August 7, 2018, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs $105.0 million in compensatory damages, which was subject to trebling, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. We believe the jury reached the wrong result, and on September 4, 2018, the defendants sought review in the trial court of both the finding of liability and the damages award. On December 13, 2018, the defendants announced that they reached a settlement in the Shuffle Tech matter, and that as part of the settlement, we paid the plaintiffs $151.5 million, which represents 45% of the $105.0 million in compensatory damages awarded by the jury on August 7, 2018 which was subject to trebling, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. As part of the settlement, on December 24, 2018, the trial court entered an order vacating and striking the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict, denying all pending motions and petitions as moot, and dismissing the Shuffle Tech matter with prejudice. While this settlement resolves the disputed claims asserted in the Shuffle Tech matter, the defendants have not admitted, and continue to deny, any liability.

Washington State Matter

On April 17, 2018, a plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint, Fife v. Scientific Games Corp., against SGC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual coins playing SGC's online social casino games, including but not limited to Jackpot PartyCasino and Gold Fish Casino. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington’s Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington’s consumer protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified money damages (including treble damages as appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and/or declaratory relief. On July 2, 2018, SGC filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, which the trial court denied on December 18, 2018. SGC filed its answer to the putative class action complaint on January 18, 2019. Due to the early nature of this litigation, we are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

Raqqa Matter

On May 4, 2018, plaintiffs Raqqa, Inc. Pittsburg Liquors, Inc., Omdev, Inc., Om Riya, Inc., E and B Liquors, Inc., Michael Cairo, and Jason Van Lente (collectively, “plaintiffs”) filed a putative class action complaint against Northstar Lottery Group LLC, IGT Global Solutions Corporation, and Scientific Games International, Inc. (collectively, “defendants”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In their complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent two putative classes of persons: (1) all persons who were or are parties to a contract to sell at retail Illinois Lottery instant game tickets at any time between July 1, 2011 and the present; and (2) all natural persons who purchased one or more Illinois Lottery instant game tickets at any time between July 1, 2011 and the present. The complaint alleges that Northstar Lottery Group LLC discontinued certain Illinois Lottery instant game tickets before all grand prizes were awarded, and further alleges that those discontinuations caused economic harm to lottery players, and to lottery retailers who receive commissions on winning tickets. The complaint asserts claims for alleged tortious interference with contract, alleged tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, alleged common law fraud, alleged violation of Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, alleged unjust enrichment and alleged civil conspiracy. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and the award of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice, which is fully-briefed and pending before the trial court. Due to the early nature of this litigation, we are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.