Gambling addict's exploitation claim against MGM dismissed by Third Circuit: no recognized 'duty of care' established.
Title: Can Casinos Be Held Responsible for Gambling Addicts? MGM's Court Battle Explained
Unsurprisingly, the house often leaves the table as the victor.
In an intriguing turn of events, a court panel recently decided that MGM Resorts-a colossal name in the hospitality and amusement sector-isn't liable for luring a self-proclaimed compulsive gambler into spending a whopping $25 million on iGaming platforms.
Sam A. Antar threw his hat in the legal ring in 2022, targeting MGM Resorts and its affiliates in a federal lawsuit alleging negligence and breaches of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Antar accused designated VIP hosts from MGM of coaxing him to gamble despite being acutely aware of his gambling addiction. A federal judge decided to dismiss these claims, and Antar quickly appealed the decision.
In the panel's 2023 ruling, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Richards Roth explained that courts in New Jersey and across the country have consistently refused to impose a duty of care on casinos in regard to compulsive gamblers.
Courts in New Jersey have strict regulations and consumer protection measures in place for online gambling operators, requiring them to focus on responsible gaming practices like age verification, geolocation, and self-exclusion tools to combat addiction[2]. However, the idea of imposing liability on casinos for enticing problem gamblers remains elusive. Proving that MGM or any other casino has violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by deliberately enticing compulsive gamblers is incredibly challenging, as it requires demonstrating fraudulent actions or deceptive practices[1].
Recent legal precedent further complicates matters, as a recent case deemed a gambling addict unable to sue MGM for negligence and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. This decision could very well dim the chances of successfully suing casinos for enticing problem gamblers under existing law[1].
MGM is obligated to adhere to New Jersey's stringent regulations, but the question of enticing problem gamblers is a tangled web. The liability under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act would rely on whether it could be proven that MGM deliberately engaged in deceptive or unfair practices specifically targeting vulnerable gamblers.
In conclusion, while New Jersey has stringent regulations and consumer protections in place, imposing liability on MGM under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act for enticing problem gamblers would require solid evidence of deceptive or unfair business practices. Given the recent legal precedents, winning such lawsuits could prove to be an uphill battle.
[1] "Gambling Addict Can't Sue MGM for Negligence, CFA Violations, Court Rules" (http://www.law360.com/articles/1436553/gambling-addict-cant-sue-mgm-for-negligence-cfa-violations-court-rules)
[2] "New Jersey Online Gaming Industry Compliance with Responsible Gaming Measures" (https://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/documents/njics/njics19-33.pdf)
- Sam Antar, despite his opinion, was unsuccessful in holding MGM Resorts liable for his gambling losses, as the court dismissed claims of negligence and breaches of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act against the casino giant.
- In a complicated legal landscape, it would be challenging for Sam Antar or any other individual to prove that MGM Resorts, or any other casino, has intentionally enticed problem gamblers, making successful lawsuits under existing law a difficult endeavor.
- Regardless of efforts by casinos like MGM to adhere to New Jersey's strict regulations and consumer protection measures, the liability for enticing problem gamblers under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act remains unclear, requiring solid evidence of deceptive or unfair business practices.
