A lawsuit against James ‘PhantomL0rd’ Varga and PhantomL0rd Inc. has been filed.
As you may know, the catalyst that sparked this inclusion into the class action lawsuit was the hacked Skype logs given to Richard Lewis.
The logs imply Varga, Joris Dahau, and CSGO personality cAre as the owners behind CSGO Shuffle. Without ever confirming ownership, Varga and cAre continually “promoted” the site. In reality, they — as well as popular streamer Dinglederper — were attracting users to the site rigging bets against them.
What’s more, the Skype logs indicated FaZe ownership of CSGO Wild as well as Vulcun’s reach into the Counter-Strike gambling scene.
Varga’s significant other Tory, better known as Dinglederper, has come out to state that she had only acted a promoter of CSGO Shuffle — through the Skype logs seem to indicate her as knowing more about the inner workings.
Phantom has not spoken on the issue himself as of yet and when his business partner cAre reached out to the community to speak about the gambling site, the French CSGO personality failed to follow through.
You can find the full timeline of the PhantomL0rd fiasco here.
Though advised to keep a low-profile, Varga fills his Snapchat with Vegas parties and his lavish lifestyle.
The same law firm, Jones Ward, that filed a class action against Valve, CSGO Lotto, and OPSKINS amongst others now includes James ‘PhantomL0rd’ Varga, PhantomL0rd Inc., CSGO Shuffle, Trevor ‘TmarTn’ Martin, and Thomas ‘ProSyndicate’ Cassell according to Legal Newsline.
Jones Ward remains as one of the lead firms against Draft Kings and FanDuel dealing with extremely similar online betting. They seem to be well equipped to achieve the best results for the community behind the class action.
A group of more than 30 consumers is suing multiple companies, alleging violation of Washington state and federal gambling laws…
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs suffered damages from having valve’s steam users able to participate in online gambling. The plaintiffs allege the defendants allowed users under the age of 21 to participate in online gambling despite being aware of this illegal practice.
Users have probably only been affected by only one or two of these sites and grouping them together may seem unjust; however if the case goes ahead to a jury trial, the select few will go entity-by-entity to determine who-did-what.