Litigation

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Litigation

Litigation

We are involved in various legal proceedings, which are described in Note 21 within our 2020 10-K. There have been no material changes to these matters since the 2020 10-K was filed with the SEC on March 1, 2021, except as described 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 $11 million and $3 million for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, 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 in Note 21 in our 2020 10-K and this Note 16 as well as those related to the previously disclosed settlement agreement entered into in February 2015 with SNAI S.p.a., 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 $14 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.

Washington State Matter

On April 17, 2018, a plaintiff, Sheryl Fife, filed a putative class action complaint, Fife v. Scientific Games Corporation, 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 Party® Casino 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. On August 24, 2020, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint and to substitute a new plaintiff, Donna Reed, for the initial plaintiff, and re-captioned the matter Reed v. Scientific Games Corporation. On August 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against SGC, asserting the same claims, and seeking the same relief, as the complaint filed by Sheryl Fife. On September 8, 2020, SGC filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims and to dismiss the action, or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On April 9, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the putative class and for a preliminary injunction. On April 26, 2021, the district court stayed the lawsuit, pending its ruling on SGC’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims and to dismiss the action, or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On June 17, 2021, the district court denied that motion, and on June 23, 2021, SGC filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s denial of that motion, and also filed a motion to stay all district court proceedings, pending the appeals court’s ruling on the Company’s arbitration appeal. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

Casino Queen Matter

On April 2, 2021, Casino Queen, Inc. and Casino Queen Marquette, Inc. filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against SGC, Bally Technologies, Inc. and SG Gaming, f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims arising from the defendants’ procurement of particular U.S. patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States from the defendants, or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between April 1, 2009, and the present. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiffs’ costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On June 11, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.

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 filed an appeal to the Council of State, and on December 10, 2020, the Council of State issued a ruling affirming the Tribunal’s decision. On December 16, 2020, SGI filed a motion for clarification of the Council of State’s ruling, which the Council of State denied on April 15, 2021. On April 22, 2021, SGI filed a motion for reconsideration relating to that decision.

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.

SciPlay IPO Matter (New York)

On or about October 14, 2019, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis filed a putative class action complaint in New York state court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, and SciPlay’s underwriters with respect to its IPO (the “PRS Action”). The complaint was amended on November 18, 2019. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons or entities who acquired Class A common stock of SciPlay pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement filed and issued in connection with the SciPlay IPO, which commenced on or about May 3, 2019. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77, and seeks certification of the putative class; compensatory damages of at least $146 million, and the award of the plaintiff’s and the class’s reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action. On or about December 9, 2019, Hongwei Li filed a putative class action complaint in New York state court asserting substantively similar causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and substantially similar factual allegations as those alleged in the PRS Action (the “Li Action”). On December 18, 2019, the New York state court entered a stipulated order consolidating the PRS Action and the Li Action into a single lawsuit. On December 23, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action. On August 28, 2020, the court issued an oral ruling granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On December 14, 2020, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion to certify the putative class. On May 12, 2021, the parties in the consolidated action reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated action and so informed the New York court, which stayed non-settlement related proceedings in the consolidated action, pending finalization of the settlement in principle.

SciPlay IPO Matter (Nevada)

On or about November 4, 2019, plaintiff John Good filed a putative class action complaint in Nevada state court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, SGC, and SciPlay’s underwriters with respect to the SciPlay IPO. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who purchased Class A common stock of SciPlay in or traceable to the SciPlay IPO that it completed on or about May 7, 2019. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77, and seeks certification of the putative class; compensatory damages, and the award of the plaintiff’s and the class’s reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action. On February 27, 2020, the trial court entered a stipulated order that, among other things, stayed the lawsuit pending entry of an order resolving the motion to dismiss that was pending in the SciPlay IPO matter in New York state court. On September 29, 2020, the trial court entered a stipulated order that extended the stay pending a ruling on class certification in the SciPlay IPO matter in New York state court. On May 12, 2021, the parties in the Nevada lawsuit reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit and so informed the Nevada court, which stayed non-settlement related proceedings in the lawsuit, pending finalization of the settlement in principle.

Based on our assessment under ASC 410 and ASC 450 and consideration of the SciPlay IPO matters pending in New York and Nevada described above, we determined that both loss and insurance proceeds loss recovery, which we believe is recoverable under our insurance policy, are deemed probable and reasonably estimable. As a result, we recorded approximately $8 million in Accrued liabilities and Prepaid expenses and other current assets as of June 30, 2021, with no material impact on our statement of operations income for the three and six-month periods ended June 30, 2021.

For additional information regarding our pending litigation matters, see Note 21 in our 2020 10-K.