MGM denies wrongdoing or culpability in Antar’s BetMGM lawsuit

Borgata Casino New Jersey
Image: Shutterstock

The ongoing suit between Sam A. Antar and BetMGM continues even though Antar is currently incarcerated.

Antar amended the scope of his complaint, submitting a new motion where he described how he wagered over $24 million with BetMGM and Borgata Casino. In the new complaint, he named two VIP hosts with the company, Quinton Hogan and Jerry Liang, coerced him with bonus bets and free parking at Borgata in order to keep Antar gambling on the site.

The amended complaint alleges that Hogan and Liang were fully aware that Antar had a diagnosed compulsive gambling problem and nonetheless encouraged him to keep playing on BetMGM through more than 1,800 text mesages with Antar over a six-month period.

The new charges against BetMGM include consumer fraud, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The amended complaint has also removed the section of the original complaint where Antar alleged the sites were rigged to disconnect right when he was on the precipice of a big payday.

MGM has filed a second motion to dismiss again denying any wrongdoing and reiterating that the suit is meritless and has no legal standing.

“Plaintiff Sam A. Antar (“Antar”) is a convicted felon and repeat fraudster who has pled guilty to defrauding numerous individuals out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in false stock investment schemes. Rather than accept accountability for his own actions, Antar blames BetMGM for his crimes, falsely claiming that BetMGM preyed upon his alleged gambling addiction,” the motion read.

BetMGM went on to note that Antar, by agreeing to the terms of service of both and BetMGM waived his right to sue the company and can only take the matter to arbitration.

When it came to the new scope of the complaint, the motion pointed out that past court decisions have supported the idea that casinos are under no obligation to stop a person from gambling even if they do have a gambling disorder.

“BetMGM was not creating or exacerbating problem gambling in Antar or any other customer. To be sure, BetMGM takes problem gambling seriously, and has numerous options for persons to self-exclude or limit their play, as well as resources for assistance. However, New Jersey law does not include a common law duty to protect problem gamblers from their actions. Despite a heightened sensitivity to problem gaming, New Jersey courts have repeatedly held that casinos have no common law duty to prevent alleged ‘compulsive gamblers’ from gambling.”

Finally, the motion also called Antar’s character into question, submitting his extensive criminal history into evidence. Just last month, Antar agreed to pay restitution to victims of a securities fraud scheme in the amount of $350,000. The fraudulent activity took place during the same window Antar alleges BetMGM preyed upon him.

New Jersey District Court’s Judge Madeline Cox Arleo is set to rule on the motion to dismiss by July3.