Cash Game Apps Without Bots: What the Record Shows

In a cash skill tournament, players pay an entry fee, play the same game under the same conditions, and the top score or scores take the prize. The model depends on one promise: the scores a player is measured against were posted by other people who paid the same entry fee and played the same game.

A bot, in this context, is an entrant that is not a person. It can be software that plays the game, or simply a score that the operator's system assigns and displays as if a player had posted it. The second form is the one described in the main court record on this topic. In its July 27, 2026 opinion in Skillz v. Papaya Gaming, the court described the bots at issue as scores designated by the operator's algorithms, not artificially intelligent players.

It matters for two reasons. First, prize money: if an operator-controlled entrant wins a tournament, the prize does not go to a customer. Second, the skill premise: if the operator chooses the score a player must beat, the result no longer turns on how two people played. Operators have an incentive to fill tournaments quickly at all hours, which is the business pressure that bots relieve. That is why the question deserves a careful, sourced answer instead of a slogan.

Bots in this sense are different from computer-controlled characters that are a disclosed part of a game's design, such as an automated partner in a card game. That distinction is covered in its own section below.

This guide is an independent third-party site. It has no access to any operator's servers, matchmaking code, or internal data, so it cannot confirm that any app is free of bots today, and it does not claim that any app is using them today.

What it can do is report two kinds of public information: what courts have found or what is alleged in filed cases, with the date, court, status, and each company's response; and what each operator says about bots in its own published materials. Allegations are labeled as allegations. A settlement is not a finding. A patent verdict is not a finding about bots. Where the status of a matter could not be confirmed from a primary or established source, it is left out or the gap is stated.

The case. Skillz Platform Inc. sued Papaya Gaming, Ltd. and Papaya Gaming, Inc. on March 4, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (No. 1:24-cv-01646, Judge Denise L. Cote). Skillz, a direct competitor, alleged false advertising under the federal Lanham Act and New York General Business Law section 349, claiming that Papaya advertised its cash tournaments as fair, skill-based contests between real players while entering bots in them. Papaya publishes Solitaire Cash, Bubble Cash, Bingo Cash, and 21 Cash.

The verdict. On April 23, 2026, after what VitalLaw describes as a ten-day trial, a jury found Papaya liable for false advertising under both statutes and awarded Skillz $420 million in damages. In an advisory verdict on disgorgement, the jury also returned figures of $719 million for Papaya's profits and $652 million for cost savings, according to the court's later opinion and reporting by VitalLaw.

The opinion dated July 27, 2026. Judge Cote denied all of Papaya's post-trial motions and awarded Skillz $719 million in disgorgement in place of the $420 million damages award, plus attorney's fees for 2024 and 2025. The opinion does not state a fee amount; the July 28, 2026 release from Skillz's parent Firy Inc. put it at approximately $10 million, and Troutman Pepper Locke's Regulatory Oversight blog put it at $10.1 million. The opinion describes two kinds of bots: liquidity bots used to fill tournaments so they could start at any hour, and tailored bots used to give a player a designated win or loss. It states that tailored bots operated in over 630 million tournaments, roughly one quarter of the 2.6 billion tournaments Papaya hosted from 2021 to 2024, that bots accounted for over 13 million participants on the platform compared with about 11 million human players in that period, and that Papaya paid customers roughly $2 billion of the $6.7 billion in prizes it advertised. The court found the case exceptional, citing evidence that Papaya acted willfully and in bad faith. A separate opinion on Skillz's request for an injunction was still to come as of that date.

What the record says about timing. The same opinion states that Papaya stopped using bots near the end of 2023. VitalLaw reported that the judge, in declining a larger disgorgement figure, noted that Papaya had discontinued the use of bots and was unlikely to repeat the conduct. The findings describe conduct that the court says ended in late 2023. They are not a finding about how Papaya's apps operate today.

Papaya's response. Papaya contested the claims at trial and argued in its post-trial motions, among other points, that Skillz had not proven falsity, materiality, or injury. In a statement reported by GamesBeat on July 28, 2026, Papaya said it was disappointed with the outcome and was pursuing all available options, including appeal. In a statement reported by the Jerusalem Post on August 3, 2026, Papaya said it believes the judgment contains material errors and that it plans to challenge both liability and the amount. According to a release from Skillz's parent company dated August 31, 2026, Papaya has said it intends to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Status as of 2026-09-20. Judgment for Skillz in the district court; appeal announced by Papaya; injunction opinion pending when last checked. The Jerusalem Post reported on August 3, 2026 that Papaya began a court-supervised payment arrangement proceeding in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court, which granted a temporary stay that day, and that Papaya said employees, suppliers, and players would not be affected. According to a Skillz parent company release dated August 31, 2026, Papaya also petitioned the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware under Chapter 15 (No. 26-11217) to recognize the Israeli proceeding, and the Israeli court declined on August 26 to send Papaya's first proposal to a creditor vote and appointed an arrangement manager to work on a revised plan.

Papaya's counterclaims against Skillz. Papaya filed counterclaims in August 2024 alleging, among other things, that Skillz itself allowed bots on its platform. The court dismissed some of those counterclaims in February 2025, and in November 2025 it granted Skillz summary judgment on the rest on the ground that Papaya had not offered sufficient evidence of injury, according to a 2026 opinion in the case. That ruling turned on injury. It is not a court finding either way about bot use on the Skillz platform.

The patent case. Skillz sued AviaGames Inc. on April 5, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 5:21-cv-02436, Judge Beth Labson Freeman), alleging that AviaGames' Pocket7Games app infringed a Skillz patent. On February 9, 2024, a jury in San Jose found that AviaGames willfully infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,649,564 and awarded Skillz $42.9 million, according to Skillz's SEC filings and Reuters.

That verdict was about patent infringement. It was not a finding about bots.

The bot allegations. Reuters reported on November 28, 2023 that Skillz told the court in August 2023 that it had learned in discovery that AviaGames used bots in its cash games. The same report states that AviaGames denied using bots to manipulate its games and said in a court filing that Skillz engages in the conduct it accused AviaGames of.

The second case and the settlement. Skillz and game developer Big Run Studios also brought a separate federal case in San Francisco against AviaGames for false advertising, copyright infringement, and California unfair competition claims. On April 13, 2024, the parties settled both cases. According to Skillz's SEC filing, AviaGames agreed to pay Skillz and Big Run a total of $80.0 million in exchange for dismissal of both actions, including $7.5 million a year to Skillz for four years beginning in March 2025 as patent royalties.

Status. Both cases were dismissed under the settlement. Because the false advertising case settled, no court or jury ruled on whether AviaGames' advertising about its opponents was false.

Pandolfi et al. v. AviaGames, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal., No. 3:23-cv-05971, Judge Edward M. Chen). Filed in November 2023 by players of Bingo Clash, Solitaire Clash, Pocket7Games, and other AviaGames titles. The complaint alleges that AviaGames represented that users compete against real people in games of skill when they were playing against computer bots. AviaGames' own Terms of Service describe the suit as asserting claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. AviaGames contests the claims.

So far the rulings in Pandolfi concern arbitration, not the merits. On September 4, 2024 the district court denied AviaGames' motion to compel arbitration. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed on August 27, 2025 (No. 24-5817), holding the arbitration agreement's mass-arbitration provisions unconscionable under California law. The U.S. Supreme Court denied AviaGames' petition for certiorari on May 18, 2026 (No. 25-1008). The case therefore proceeds in court. No court has ruled on whether the bot allegations are true.

Barcelo et al. v. Papaya Gaming Ltd. et al. (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, No. 24STCV32626). The complaint, which the official settlement site posts with a December 2024 date, alleges that Papaya misled players into believing its games were skill-based when they were not because of the alleged use of bots in contests. Papaya agreed to a $15 million non-reversionary settlement fund covering U.S. players who had a Papaya account and made a deposit from January 1, 2019 through September 5, 2024. The claim, exclusion, and objection deadline was January 30, 2026.

The official settlement site states that Papaya denies all claims and all charges of wrongdoing or liability, that the court did not decide in favor of either side, and that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing. It also states that the court continued the final approval hearing from March 2, 2026 to March 25, 2026. This guide could not confirm from a primary source whether final approval was granted, so it does not state an outcome. Class members should rely on the official site, mobilegamingsettlement.com, for status and payment questions.

WorldWinner. WorldWinner's corporate homepage tells players they always play against real people and are matched with other players within their skill level. Its Responsible Gaming Policy states that it works around the clock to block bots and duplicate accounts from competing against its players, and that it has systems to detect and prevent cheating, collusion, duplicate accounts, and unauthorized software such as bots and scripts. WorldWinner states that players never face bots. WorldWinner's terms also prohibit players from using bots. This guide located no court finding about bot use by WorldWinner in the sources it checked.

Skillz. The Skillz website states that every Skillz tournament is between real players, "never bots", and that players are matched with real players at their skill level. Its players page uses the phrase "no unfair bots". As noted above, Papaya's counterclaim alleging bots on the Skillz platform was dismissed on injury grounds without a finding on that question.

Papaya Gaming. Papaya's FAQ, as checked on 2026-09-20, states that Papaya currently does not use bots in any of its games, that its real-money competitions involve only human players, and that many of its games were tested by FTI Consulting, which Papaya says found no evidence of pairing human players with bots in competitive tournaments during the period analyzed. The FAQ describes its format as asynchronous multiplayer tournaments in which every entrant receives the same deck and conditions, with skill-based matchmaking. The word "currently" is Papaya's own; the court record above concerns a period that the court says ended in late 2023.

AviaGames. AviaGames' Terms of Service (last updated August 18, 2025) do not use the word bots to describe opponents. They disclose that a player may be matched against a currently logged-in player or against a real player's recorded "Historical Playthrough", that all players in a match receive the same game setup, and that if a Historical Playthrough score wins a game, AviaGames keeps the prize won by that score. The terms also carry a notice of the pending Pandolfi lawsuit. Reuters reported in November 2023 that AviaGames denied using bots to manipulate its games.

These are the companies' own statements. This guide reports them with attribution and has not audited any of them.

WorldWinner states that players never face bots in tournaments. It is also true that some WorldWinner games include computer-controlled characters as a disclosed part of the game itself. Both statements can hold at once, and a careful reader should know the difference.

In Spades Showdown, WorldWinner documents that the partner and the two opponents at the table are computer controlled, and describes how they bid and play. In that game the computer seats are the puzzle each entrant has to solve. The tournament rival is another person, who plays their own game against the same kind of computer table, and the two results are converted into tournament scores and compared.

The difference from the conduct described in the Papaya record is disclosure and role. A disclosed in-game computer seat is published in the rules, is the same kind of challenge for every entrant, and cannot take the prize. The bots described in the court's opinion were undisclosed entrants whose scores were compared directly with paying players' scores in tournaments advertised as being between real people.

A player who wants every seat at the table to be human, not only the tournament rival, should read a game's rules page before entering. The game pages on this site state where WorldWinner documents a computer-controlled seat.

No single test proves that an app has no bots, but five checks take a few minutes and work for any operator.

1. Find the published bot statement. Look in the FAQ, help center, or responsible gaming policy for a direct sentence about whether opponents are real people. Note the exact wording: "never", "currently", and "no unfair bots" are different commitments. No statement at all is also information.

2. Read the terms for matching disclosures. Search the terms of service for words such as bot, computer, automated, recorded, historical, and house. Check who an opponent can be, whether recorded play is used, and who keeps a prize if a non-live score wins.

3. Search the litigation record. Search the company name on a free docket or opinion site such as CourtListener or Justia, and check the Truth in Advertising class action tracker. Read the status line, not only the headline: a complaint is an allegation, a settlement is not a finding, and a verdict can be under appeal.

4. Compare what the ads promise with what the terms say. Court cases in this area have turned on the gap between advertising language and actual practice.

5. Use free practice play, then start small. Practice games show how matching and results feel before any entry fee is paid. If cash play follows, keep a record of entries and results. Winnings are never guaranteed on any platform.

One caution on folk tests: fast matching alone does not prove anything. Many platforms, WorldWinner included, run asynchronous tournaments in which the opponent plays the same layout at a different time, so a match can be available at once without anyone being online at that moment.

The table condenses the sections above. "Court findings on record" means a finding by a judge or jury about bot use, not an allegation. All entries are as of 2026-09-20 and can change, particularly on appeal.

Sources were checked on 2026-09-20 and are listed at the end of the page. Litigation facts were taken from court opinions published on Justia, the SCOTUSblog case page, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce litigation tracker (which hosts the Ninth Circuit opinion), a Skillz SEC filing, the official class settlement website, and dated reporting from Reuters, GamesBeat, the Jerusalem Post, VitalLaw, and the Regulatory Oversight blog of the law firm Troutman Pepper Locke. Two items come from press releases by Skillz's parent company, which is a party to the case, and are labeled that way.

Operator statements were read on each operator's own website on the same date. Wording on those pages can change without notice.

This site is independent. It is not operated by WorldWinner or by any company named here, it is not a law firm, and nothing on this page is legal advice. Appeals and pending cases can change the picture. Readers should confirm current terms and policies with each company and check the dockets directly for the latest status.