Litigation

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

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 $11 million and $27 million for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, 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 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, LNWI, 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, LNWI and the other shareholders of Wintech of up to $5 million if certain levels of lottery sales were not achieved. In addition, LNWI delivered to Ecosalud a $4 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, LNWI 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. LNWI filed separate actions opposing each resolution with the Tribunal Contencioso of Cundinamarca in Colombia (the “Tribunal”), which upheld both resolutions. LNWI 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 LNWI 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 LNWI to enforce the liquidation resolution and recover the claimed damages. In May 2013, the Tribunal denied LNWI’s merit defenses to the collection proceeding and issued an order of payment of approximately 90 billion Colombian pesos, or approximately $30 million, plus default interest (potentially accrued since 1994 at a 12% statutory interest rate). LNWI 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, LNWI filed a motion for clarification of the Council of State’s ruling, which was denied on April 15, 2021. On April 22, 2021, LNWI filed a motion for reconsideration relating to that decision, which the Council of State denied on February 21, 2022. On May 24, 2022, the case was transferred from the Council of State to the Tribunal for further proceedings. On August 18, 2022, LNWI filed a constitutional challenge to the Council of State’s December 10, 2020 decision with that court, which was denied on October 7, 2022. On December 7, 2022, LNWI filed an appeal from the denial of the constitutional challenge, which is pending.

LNWI 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 arising out of the April 2012 incident and asserting claims based on theories of 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 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. To date, we have paid €9.4 million to SNAI pursuant to our indemnification obligations.

Washington State Matter

On April 17, 2018, a plaintiff, Sheryl Fife, filed a putative class action complaint, Fife v. Scientific Games Corporation, against L&W 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 L&W’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, L&W filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, which the trial court denied on December 18, 2018. L&W 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 L&W, asserting the same claims, and seeking the same relief, as the complaint filed by Sheryl Fife. On September 8, 2020, L&W 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 June 17, 2021, the district court denied that motion, and on June 23, 2021, L&W 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. On November 23, 2021, we entered into an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit for the amount of $25 million. On December 3, 2021, the district court granted a joint motion to stay appellate proceedings until final approval by the district court of the parties’ settlement. On January 18, 2022, the parties executed a settlement agreement, and plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the parties’ proposed settlement agreement. On January 19, 2022, the district court granted preliminary approval to the parties’ proposed settlement. On August 12, 2022, the district court gave its final approval to the settlement. On August 18, 2022, the court entered judgment and dismissed the action with prejudice. Although the case was brought against Light & Wonder, pursuant to the Intercompany Services Agreement, SciPlay fully paid the settlement previously accrued in the amount of $25 million during the third quarter of 2022, due to the matter arising as a result of their business.

TCS John Huxley Matter

On March 15, 2019, TCS John Huxley America, Inc., TCS John Huxley Europe Ltd., TCS John Huxley Asia Ltd., and Taiwan Fulgent Enterprise Co., Ltd. brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a SG Gaming, Inc. In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims arising from the defendants’ procurement of particular U.S. and South African patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold to regulated casinos in the United States. On April 10, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. On April 25, 2019, the district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice pursuant to the court’s local rules, after the plaintiffs advised that they intended to file an amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on May 3, 2019, and on May 22, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint with prejudice. On March 20, 2020, the district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, and defendants filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint on June 19, 2020. On June 3, 2020, the trial court granted the defendants’ request to bifurcate proceedings in the case, with discovery to occur first into the statute of limitations and release defenses asserted by the defendants in their motion to dismiss, before proceeding into broader discovery. The trial court set a September 18, 2020, deadline for the parties to complete discovery relating to the statute of limitations and release defenses. On October 28, 2020, the court issued an order extending until January 15, 2021 the deadline for the parties to complete discovery relating to the statute of limitations defense. On February 9, 2021, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on their statute of limitations defense, addressing whether plaintiffs had actual knowledge of their claims prior to the start of the limitations period. The district court denied that motion for summary judgment on September 20, 2021. On January 13, 2023, the district court entered an order requiring, among other things, that the plaintiffs make a formal written settlement demand by January 20, 2023, that the defendants respond to that demand in writing by January 27, 2023, and that the parties file a status report by January 31, 2023 confirming that they have complied with the district court’s order. On January 31, 2023, the parties filed a joint status report confirming that they have complied with the district court’s order to make and respond to a formal written demand. We are unable at this time to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses above the amount we have accrued for this matter due to the complexity of the plaintiffs’ claims, and the unpredictability of the outcome of the proceedings in the district court, and on any appeal therefrom.

Tonkawa Tribe Matter

On September 3, 2020, the Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma d/b/a Tonkawa Enterprises filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. On October 5, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to add Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians and the Umpqua Indian Development Corp., d/b/a Seven Feathers Casino as a plaintiff. On October 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. 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 card shufflers sold or leased to regulated casinos in the United States. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all regulated United States casinos directly leasing or purchasing card shufflers from the defendants on or after April 1, 2009. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, the award of plaintiff’s costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On November 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims. On November 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a finding that defendants are collaterally estopped from re-litigating issues litigated in the 2018 litigation versus Shuffle Tech International Corp., Aces Up Gaming, and Poydras-Talrick Holdings. On August 27, 2021, the Nevada district court entered an order transferring the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 19, 2022, the Illinois district court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ individual claims; stayed all proceedings in the lawsuit pending resolution of the arbitral process; and accordingly dismissed all pending motions without prejudice as moot. 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.

Giuliano and Rancho’s Club Casino Matter

On September 4, 2020, Alfred T. Giuliano, as liquidation trustee for RIH Acquisition NJ, LLC d/b/a The Atlantic Club Casino Hotel filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., 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 plaintiff’s costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On September 8, 2020, Rancho’s Club Casino, Inc., d/b/a Magnolia House Casino filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserts federal antitrust claims arising from the defendants’ procurement of particular U.S. patents. The plaintiff alleges 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 plaintiff seeks 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 plaintiff’s costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On October 29, 2020, the trial court consolidated the Giuliano and Rancho’s Club Casino matters. On October 30, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a first amended consolidated complaint. On November 9, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first amended consolidated complaint, and also filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano’s individual claims. On May 19, 2022, the Illinois district court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration; stayed all proceedings in the lawsuit pending resolution of the arbitral process; and accordingly dismissed all pending motions without prejudice. On May 31, 2022, defendants filed a motion to lift the stay of the lawsuit for the limited purpose of amending the court’s May 19, 2022 order to confirm that plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano must proceed to arbitration on an individual basis rather than a class-wide basis. 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 consolidated lawsuit are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.

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 L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., 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, which the court denied on May 19, 2022. 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.

Mohawk Gaming Enterprises Matter

On November 9, 2020, Mohawk Gaming Enterprises LLC, d/b/a Akwesasne Mohawk Casino Resort, filed a demand for a putative class arbitration before the American Arbitration Association against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. (“Respondents”). In the complaint, the claimant asserts federal antitrust claims arising from the respondents’ procurement of particular U.S. patents. The claimant alleges that the respondents used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States. The claimant seeks to represent a putative class of all persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States from the respondents, 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 arbitration panel to treble, and the award of claimant’s costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees. Respondents filed their answering statement on December 9, 2020. On October 29, 2021, the claimant filed a memorandum in support of class arbitration, which Respondents opposed on December 3, 2021. On February 8, 2022, the Arbitrator issued a clause construction award, finding that the arbitration could proceed on behalf of a class or classes. On February 11, 2022, Respondents filed a petition to vacate the award in the New York Supreme Court. The Court denied Respondents’ petition on August 9, 2022, and on August 16, 2022, Respondents appealed to the New York Appellate Division, First Department. On April 15, 2022, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the claimant’s complaint, which the Arbitrator denied on July 26, 2022. 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 arbitration demand are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.

Boorn Matter

On September 15, 2022, plaintiff Hannelore Boorn filed a putative class action against L&W, SciPlay Corporation, and Appchi Media Ltd. in the Fayette Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. In her complaint, plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in Kentucky who, within the past five years, purchased and allegedly lost $5.00 or more worth of chips, in a 24-hour period, playing SciPlay’s online social casino games. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Kentucky’s “recovery of gambling losses” statute and for unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified money damages, the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and/or other declaratory relief. On October 18, 2022, defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. On October 26, 2022, the plaintiff filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice. On October 27, 2022, the district court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit. On November 17, 2022, the plaintiff filed an arbitration demand against defendants before the American Arbitration Association, pursuant to which she seeks declaratory judgments that (1) SciPlay’s online social casino games constitute gambling under Kentucky law, and (2) SciPlay’s terms of service are void under Kentucky law. On January 12, 2023, the respondents filed their answering statement to plaintiff’s arbitration demand. 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 arbitration demand are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.

Allah Beautiful Matter

On December 19, 2022, claimant Prince Imanifest Allah Beautiful filed an arbitration demand against respondent SciPlay Corporation before the American Arbitration Association. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of New Jersey’s anti-gambling statutes and seeks unspecified money damages, including recovery of monies allegedly lost by New Jersey players of SciPlay’s online social casino games other than the claimant. Respondent’s answering statement is not yet due. 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 arbitration demand are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.

Sprinkle Matter

On December 12, 2022, claimant Matthew Sprinkle filed an arbitration demand against respondent SciPlay Corporation before the American Arbitration Association. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Ohio’s anti-gambling statutes and seeks unspecified money damages, including recovery of monies allegedly lost by Ohio players of SciPlay’s online social casino games other than the claimant. Respondent’s answering statement is not yet due. 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 arbitration demand are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.