Pulsz Lawsuits: Operator Sued Two of Its Own Players

Yellow Social Interactive Limited, the Gibraltar company that runs Pulsz Casino, went to federal court in Delaware in March 2023 and sued two of its own customers, asking a judge to bar them from bringing anyone else's gambling losses into arbitration. The judge refused, ruled that the arbitrator decides that question and not the court, and stayed the case. Pulsz has since rewritten the clause it lost on, and the version live today gives a new player 30 days to opt out of it entirely.

We found the cases by sweeping court captions rather than brand names, which is how we check everything we publish. The filings are two and a half years old. What is current is the contract: the Pulsz Terms of Use were updated on September 1, 2026, and the arbitration section now names the exact legal theories those two players used.

The operator is Yellow Social Interactive Limited. You do not have to take our word for the link to the brand. Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware opens his October 11, 2023 order with it: "Plaintiff Yellow Social Interactive Limited (YSI) operates a website called pulsz.com that offers users the ability to play games online." The Pulsz.com footer names the same company at "company number 119215," which is the registration number YSI gave the Delaware court, and the Apple App Store lists it as the seller of both the Pulsz and Pulsz Bingo apps.

Did the Pulsz operator really sue its own players?

Yes, twice, on the same day, in two different states' worth of claims.

On March 28, 2023 YSI filed complaints in Delaware against Christopher Ebersole, of Stark County, Ohio, and Ashley Edwards, of Cobb County, Georgia. The cases were consolidated on June 12, 2023.

Both complaints say why, in near-identical words. Each defendant had filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association on or about December 16, 2022. Ebersole sought to recover money YSI received "from other Ohio residents who have not sought recovery of their own losses" under Ohio's loss recovery act, O.R.C. § 3763.04. Edwards sought the same for "other Georgia residents" under Georgia's gambling contracts law, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-3. YSI's position was that this broke the class and representative action waiver its customers accept. In its own words, YSI "is thus forced to initiate this Action to seek: (1) a declaratory judgment that Ebersole cannot proceed in a representative action against YSI in arbitration and may only proceed in arbitration as to Ebersole's own individual claims".

So the operator did not go to court to defend a claim. It went to court to shrink one, before an arbitrator had looked at it. Neither complaint asked for damages from the player. Each asked for a declaration, an order of specific performance, and costs of suit.

What did the Delaware judge decide?

Against YSI, on a threshold question. Ebersole moved to compel arbitration on April 11, 2023. YSI moved the next day to compel individual arbitration. Judge Connolly framed the real dispute as "who decides whether Ebersole's claims are permitted by the Terms of Use?"

His answer came out of YSI's own contract. Section 16.1 of the Pulsz Terms of Use, version 3.2, effective October 13, 2022, said that "in the event of any dispute concerning the scope or applicability of the Arbitration Provisions of these Terms, You and Pulsz agree that the arbitrator exclusively shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction over the Dispute". The judge found the parties "clearly and unmistakably delegated arbitrability decisions to the arbitrator", rejected YSI's reading of the Delaware venue clause as one that "would render meaningless the parties' explicit delegation of arbitrability to the arbitrator", and noted that "None of the cases YSI cites in its briefing supports its position."

The order granted Ebersole's motion, denied YSI's, and stayed the case pending his AAA arbitration. There is a detail worth keeping: the judge observed that neither side cited a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, and that YSI's proposed order asked for its own case to be dismissed, making its motion "effectively a premature motion for judgment on the pleadings".

Neither case reached a decision on the merits. The Edwards docket records a notice of voluntary dismissal filed "by Yellow Social Interactive Limited" on September 20, 2023, and closes the next day. The Ebersole docket records a notice of voluntary dismissal on February 4, 2025 and closes on February 5. That second entry's text is not in the free public mirror, so we cannot tell you who filed it or what the arbitration produced, and we are not going to guess.

What do the Pulsz arbitration terms say now?

This is the part that is live. The Terms of Use on Pulsz.com identify themselves as "Version 5.2" and say they "have been updated as of September 1, 2026, and shall supersede and replace all prior Terms of Use." Pulsz.com blocks our requests, so we read the September 5, 2026 Internet Archive capture. Four things in it matter, and three of them are new since the version Judge Connolly construed.

The delegation clause survived. Section 16.4 still hands the arbitrator "the exclusive jurisdiction to rule on their own jurisdiction over the Dispute, including any objections with respect to the scope, validity, enforceability, or severability of this Agreement." That is the clause YSI lost on, and it is still there.

The waiver now names the theories the players used. Version 3.2 barred a "class action, class arbitration, mass action or other representative action or proceeding." Section 16.16 of the current terms bars proceeding "AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, MEMBER OR PART OF ANY PROPOSED CLASS, COLLECTIVE ACTION, PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUIT, QUI TAM ACTION OR ANY REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING, OR OTHERWISE SEEK TO RECOVER ON BEHALF OF OTHERS OR FOR THE USE OR BENEFIT OF OTHERS IN ANY TYPE OF CLAIM OR ACTION." Both additions track the arguments in these cases. "Qui tam" is the label the players' side reached for when it argued that a loss recovery statute lets a stranger sue. "For the use or benefit of others" is close to the operative phrase of the statute Ebersole sued under, which lets "any person" recover "for the use of such person prosecuting such suit."

The forum changed. Section 16.10 sends disputes to JAMS under its own arbitration rules, not to the AAA. Judge Connolly's reasoning leaned partly on AAA Commercial Rule 7(a) being incorporated by reference. Section 16.11 adds a batching protocol: if 20 or more similar demands arrive from the same firms inside 60 days, JAMS consolidates them and resolves them in batches of no more than 25.

There is a 30-day exit. Section 16.14 says that a player who has not previously agreed to an arbitration provision may opt out "WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF ENTERING THIS AGREEMENT" through the operator's opt-out page, and that "REQUESTS TO OPT OUT AFTER THE 30 DAY PERIOD SHALL NOT BE EFFECTIVE." Section 16.9 makes Delaware law govern the question either way.

Side by side, against the only version of the old terms we can read, which is the one quoted in the order:

None of this appears where a player would look for it. We read all 90 articles in the Pulsz help centre through the operator's public API on September 6, 2026. The words "arbitration," "class action," "Yellow Social," "Goldmist" and "DS Consulting" appear in none of them.

How many lawsuits involve the Pulsz operator?

Ten federal dockets carry the Yellow Social Interactive name. We read the whole list on September 6, 2026.

Two of those ten have the operator as the plaintiff. Both are the Delaware pair above.

That count is what a caption sweep returns, and it is not the same as every case the company is in. A search on the operator's own name will not surface an action captioned against somebody else: the City of Baltimore's suit against six sweepstakes operator groups names Yellow Social Interactive Ltd. and YSI US Inc. among its defendants and is captioned City of Baltimore v. VGW Malta Ltd., so it is not in the ten above.

What happened in Tennessee and Alabama?

The operator lost all three, and one of the losses is still useful to it.

Angel Deann Pilati sued YSI twice in Alabama state court and Sandra Tucker Duckworth sued in Tennessee state court. YSI removed all three to federal court. All three came straight back. Judge Liles C. Burke sent the Alabama cases to the Circuit Court of Franklin County on August 14, 2023 and January 7, 2025, both times because individual players' losses cannot be aggregated to clear the $75,000 threshold. Judge Curtis L. Collier remanded the Tennessee cases on September 26, 2024 on the same reasoning.

YSI appealed the Tennessee remand and lost that too. Duckworth v. Yellow Social Interactive was one of four consolidated appeals decided by the Sixth Circuit on March 16, 2025 under the lead caption Burt v. Playtika, alongside an appeal by VGW, the operator behind Chumba Casino, and the court affirmed the order sending the cases back to state court.

The reasoning is what operators now use. The Sixth Circuit got there by holding that a plaintiff who "does not allege that she personally suffered any gambling loss" has no Article III standing, and that Tennessee's 1858 loss recovery statute is not a qui tam statute that would supply it. That kills this kind of claim in federal court. It does not decide it in state court, where Article III does not apply, and the Alabama and Tennessee state cases are outside what we can read.

We cited that decision ourselves last month when the Kentucky loss recovery case over Zula Casino was dismissed, without noting that one of the four operators in the appeal that produced it runs Pulsz. Alabama players cannot open a Pulsz account in any event, and neither can Tennessee players.

Which Pulsz lawsuits are still open?

Two things. In Kentucky, Jenkins v. Yellow Social Interactive has been open since August 2024 before District Judge Benjamin Beaton, filed as a diversity fraud claim. YSI moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to compel arbitration on January 31, 2025, an order addressing both landed on June 26, 2025, and since then the parties have filed a status report roughly every two months. The most recent is entry 59, filed September 2, 2026. The order's text is not in the free mirror, so we can report that it exists and not what it held, and we cannot tell you whether that case is in arbitration today.

In Utah, Gardner v. Yellow Social Interactive also names a US entity, YSI US Inc, served through a registered agent on December 15, 2025. The defendants moved on March 6, 2026 to dismiss and to compel arbitration. On April 20, 2026 the plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the arbitration motion, and nothing has been docketed since. That case is heading where Ebersole's went.

Why don't Pulsz's two ownership filings match?

Our page on who owns Pulsz Casino carries the corporate detail on the Gibraltar company behind both brands. What is new here is that it has told two federal courts, and the filings do not match. Its Delaware Rule 7.1 disclosure of March 28, 2023 states that "Plaintiff Yellow Social Interactive Limited (Gibraltar Company - Reg. No. 119215) is owned by Goldmist Enterprises Limited (Gibraltar Company - Reg. No. 122367) and Damian Sokol, an individual." Its Kentucky disclosure of January 31, 2025 identifies two corporate parents, Goldmist Enterprises Limited and DS Consulting Limited, and names no individual.

We are not going to tell you what moved between those filings. A Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure asks for parent corporations, so the two documents are not answering an identical question, and an individual owner can drop out of the second for that reason alone. What we can say is that Goldmist Enterprises Limited is named as an owner in both, that no filing we read explains the change, and that neither Goldmist nor DS Consulting is named anywhere on the Pulsz site or in its help centre.

What does this mean if you play at Pulsz?

Not much about availability, and one thing you can act on.

Pulsz still accepts players in Ohio, Georgia, Kentucky, Utah and Delaware. It does not accept them in Alabama or Tennessee, the two states these suits came from, and it has left California, New York, Connecticut, Louisiana and Maryland for reasons that have nothing to do with this litigation. No state has ordered it out over any of these cases, and nothing here touches balances or redemption terms. What has changed how you play Pulsz this month is state law rather than a court: Oklahoma is now Gold Coins only ahead of that state's November 1 ban.

What it changes is the arbitration clause, which has been litigated in four federal courts and which the operator has twice used as a sword rather than a shield. If you have a dispute with Pulsz, the route is an individual JAMS arbitration for your own losses, and the current terms bar you from recovering for anyone else by any label a lawyer has yet thought of. If you signed up in the last 30 days and have never accepted a Pulsz arbitration clause before, section 16.14 says you can still opt out, and that after 30 days you cannot. That is the only window in the document. What one of these arbitrations looks like from the outside is visible only when a player takes the result back to a judge, as two Stake.us players in Massachusetts did in August 2026. Our guide to whether sweepstakes casinos are legal covers why those terms matter as much as your state's law.

One correction lands on us. Our Pulsz Casino review and our Yellow Social Interactive operator profile both tell readers the company has settled three class actions with a fourth in motion, sourced to review-aggregator reporting rather than a document. No settlement appears anywhere in the ten federal dockets: three remands to state court, one appeal in which the remand was affirmed, two suits the operator brought itself and both voluntarily dismissed, one California case closed in September 2025 whose disposition we did not read, one Sixth Circuit matter with no readable detail, and two cases still open. Settlements may have happened in state court or in arbitration, where we cannot see them. Either way, a number that feeds the Trust and Safety score on a brand sitting sixth in our best sweepstakes casinos ranking at 9.0 should not rest on an aggregator, and both pages are flagged for rewriting against these documents. The same claim sits on the Pulsz Bingo review and needs the same treatment. How we rate explains what that criterion is worth.

Sources & documents

• Complaint, Yellow Social Interactive Limited v. Ebersole, No. 1:23-cv-00352 (D. Del.), filed March 28, 2023 (PDF), for the operator's own statement of why it sued, the quotation from paragraph 5 and the prayer for relief
• Complaint, Yellow Social Interactive Limited v. Edwards, No. 1:23-cv-00351 (D. Del.) (PDF), the second of the two suits, for the Georgia claim under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-3
• Memorandum Order of Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly, October 11, 2023 (PDF), for the pulsz.com identification, the version 3.2 Terms of Use quotations, the ruling and the stay
• Rule 7.1 disclosure statement, filed March 28, 2023 (PDF), for the Gibraltar registration numbers and the 2023 ownership
• Pulsz Terms of Use, Version 5.2, updated September 1, 2026, Internet Archive capture of September 5, 2026, for sections 16.4, 16.9, 16.10, 16.11, 16.14 and 16.16 and the Gibraltar company number in the footer. The live page returns 403 to us, including on paths the site has no route for, so the block is not specific to this document
• Burt v. Playtika, Ltd., Nos. 25-5038, 25-5039, 25-5040, 25-5042 (6th Cir. Mar. 16, 2025) (PDF), the published opinion affirming the remand and deciding the Duckworth appeal against Yellow Social Interactive
• Memorandum opinion remanding the Tennessee cases, E.D. Tenn., September 26, 2024 (PDF), govinfo.gov, for the non-aggregation holding
• Memorandum opinion and order, Pilati v. Yellow Social Interactive, N.D. Ala., January 7, 2025 (PDF) and the August 14, 2023 opinion in the earlier case (PDF), govinfo.gov
• Jenkins v. Yellow Social Interactive, LTD., No. 4:24-cv-00091 (W.D. Ky.) - full docket, for the January 2025 motions, the corporate disclosure naming two corporate parents, and the September 2, 2026 status report
• CourtListener caption search for Yellow Social Interactive federal dockets, the ten-docket list in the table above
• Delaware docket entries and Utah docket entries, for the consolidation, the two dismissals, the Utah service date and the notice of non-opposition
• Pulsz help centre articles, read through the operator's public API, all 90 articles on September 6, 2026
• Apple App Store listings for Pulsz and Pulsz Bingo, both showing Yellow Social Interactive Limited as seller

Every document above was retrieved on September 6, 2026, and every quotation is verbatim from the filing or page it is attributed to. Where a docket entry's text is not in the free public mirror, we say so rather than characterising it. We have not read the Kentucky June 26, 2025 order, the disposition of the California case, the Sixth Circuit matter numbered 24-504, or anything filed in the Alabama and Tennessee state courts after remand. Yellow Social Interactive has not published any statement about these cases that we can find, and the arguments described are the ones its lawyers made in filings, not a response to us.

21+ only. If gambling stops being fun, call 1-800-GAMBLER or read our responsible gaming page.