Sam A. Antar’s push to hold BetMGM accountable for his losses gambling on the site once again failed in court
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals sided with BetMGM, upholding the decision by the New Jersey District Court that the online gambling company was not liable for Antar’s losses on the site.
The lower court determined that the state’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) did not override the state’s casino laws and concluded that Borgata Casino and BetMGM were under no legal obligation to compel problem gamblers from not gambling.
Court said Antar knew what BetMGM was offering
Antar’s original complaint alleged the BetMGM VIP coerced him to keep playing on the site even though they allegedly knew he could not afford to gamble on the site anymore. Antar claims his VIP hosts kept him addicted to playing on the site and he wagered more than $24 million with the company.
The Circuit opinion noted that Antar argued that the online casino site violated the CFA by deceiving him into continuing to play on the site with bonus offers. However, the panel of judges ultimately concluded that there was nothing deceptive at all about what these VIP hosts were offering.
“Antar was fully aware that the text messages from his VIP hosts offering bonuses, credits, and deposit matches were
exactly as the hosts represented—enticements to continue to gamble.”
Additionally, BetMGM did not offer a defective product and Antar had no real claim that he did not receive the value of his investment simply because he lost, for, Antar knew what he was purchasing with his money, which was an opportunity to take part in a gambling activity where there was a chance he would lose his money.
Upheld casinos don’t have to stop problem gamblers
Antar’s is the first of several lawsuits alleging that a regulated U.S. operator coerced someone with gambling problems into playing beyond their means. DraftKings is facing several similar suits in a number of other states.
What bodes well for the cases taking place in New Jersey is that the Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s opinion that casinos are not under the obligation to stop people from gambling. Moreover, the opinion even noted that Antar’s team failed to cite any legal case that would disrupt that standing.
