In a recent legal development, a judge delivered a significant ruling on January 31, 2024, dismissing a lawsuit levied against Borgata and its parent company, MGM Resorts International.
The lawsuit, brought forth by an individual claiming to be a compulsive gambler, alleged that the company held a legal obligation to prevent him from gambling at their establishment. However, the court’s decision marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding responsible gambling practices and the legal obligations of casino operators.
What we cover
Details of the lawsuit
In this dramatic legal saga that unfolded in September 2022, a New York man made headlines when he sued the popular Atlantic City casino for an eye-watering $29 million. The plaintiff, Sam Antar, claimed that being disconnected from their online gambling app resulted in significant losses.
Antar described himself as a compulsive gambler and alleged that the defendants, including the Borgata casino, MGM Resorts International, and their online partner Entain, were aware of his gambling addiction yet failed to intervene effectively. The plaintiff asserted that the casino should have implemented measures to restrict his access to gambling activities, thereby mitigating the harm caused by his addiction.
Antar claims that BetMGM engaged in unethical practices, including offering him free bets to dissuade him from reporting game glitches to regulators, in a bid to capitalize on his compulsive gambling behavior.
According to the lawsuit, Antar asserts that BetMGM’s online blackjack and other games frequently disconnected from the company’s servers, often at critical moments when Antar had favorable hands. These disconnections resulted in the loss of potential winnings for Antar, exacerbating his frustration and fueling his compulsive gambling tendencies.
Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that Antar’s winnings were sometimes withheld from him until he deposited more money into his account, a practice that only served to deepen his gambling addiction.
In a disturbing revelation, Antar accused online casino operator Borgata Online Casino of exploiting his addiction by using bonuses as hush money to prevent him from reporting technical glitches to regulatory authorities. Antar claims that between May 2019 and January 2020, he spent 6-8 hours a day gambling online, wagering an astonishing $29 million during this period.
According to Antar’s lawsuit, the online casino’s platform would frequently time out when he was on the brink of significant payouts, effectively nullifying his chances of winning. When Antar approached Borgata Casino staff to address these issues, he alleges they responded by offering him a steady stream of bonuses, totaling more than $30,000 each month.
Antar believed these bonuses were intended to silence him and deter him from reporting the casino’s malpractices to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE). The lawsuit also claimed that the online casino was fully aware of his status as a problem gambler, as he had voluntarily placed himself on the self-exclusion list in a bid to curb his gambling habits.
However, despite Antar’s efforts to seek help and limit his access to gambling, the casino allegedly continued to target him with lucrative offers and bonuses, fueling his compulsive behavior. The lawsuit further alleges that Antar would frequently wager exorbitant amounts, sometimes up to $5,000 on a single bet, highlighting the severity of his gambling addiction.
Despite his self-exclusion status and the inherent risks associated with his gambling behavior, Antar claims that numerous VIP hosts within the MGM organization, which oversees Borgata Online Casino, actively engaged with him via text messages regarding the technical issues he faced while gambling on the platform.
These interactions, according to Antar, implied a tacit acknowledgment of the casino’s culpability in exacerbating his gambling addiction. By disregarding Antar’s self-exclusion status and actively encouraging his continued participation in high-stakes gambling, Borgata Online Casino was accused of prioritizing profits over player welfare, perpetuating a cycle of addiction and financial ruin.
Status of the lawsuit today
However, the court ultimately ruled in favor of Borgata and MGM Resorts International, dismissing the lawsuit on grounds that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a legal basis for holding the casino responsible for his gambling losses.
In a recent landmark ruling that could have significant implications for the gambling industry, a judge has declared that Atlantic City’s casinos bear no legal responsibility to intervene and prevent compulsive gamblers from placing bets. The decision, stemming from the lawsuit discussed above, challenges the notion that casinos have a duty of care to protect problem gamblers from themselves.
The ruling, which was delivered by U.S. District Court Judge Madeline Cox Arleo on Jan. 31, dismisses a lawsuit brought by Sam Antar against the Borgata and its parent company, MGM Resorts International. Judge Arleo cited the extensive regulations governing gambling in New Jersey, stating that they do not impose a legal duty on casinos to intervene and stop compulsive gambling behavior.
The judge emphasized that while New Jersey’s casino law extensively regulates the responsibilities of casinos concerning compulsive gambling, it remains silent on whether establishments can actively induce individuals with known gambling addictions to gambling.
This ruling adds depth to the ongoing discussion about the role of casinos in addressing gambling addiction. Furthermore, Judge Arleo referenced previous cases in New Jersey, Indiana, and other states where lawsuits filed by compulsive gamblers or patrons who lost money while intoxicated were dismissed.
New Jersey, among other states, operates a self-exclusion program designed to empower individuals struggling with gambling addiction. Under this initiative, individuals can voluntarily exclude themselves from participating in both in-person and online betting activities.
The program serves as a proactive measure to assist those battling compulsive gambling behaviors by providing them with a mechanism to restrict their access to gambling venues and platforms. Casinos in New Jersey are legally obligated to honor the self-exclusion list and are subject to penalties if they allow self-excluded individuals to place bets.
Regulatory bodies closely monitor compliance with these regulations, imposing fines on establishments found to be in violation. This enforcement mechanism underscores the state’s commitment to upholding responsible gambling practices and safeguarding vulnerable individuals from the adverse effects of compulsive gambling.
This ruling sets a precedent in the ongoing debate over casinos’ responsibilities in mitigating the harms associated with gambling addiction. The decision highlights the complex legal landscape surrounding problem gambling and the challenges of balancing individual responsibility with corporate accountability.
Final Thoughts
While casinos may implement voluntary self-exclusion programs and offer resources for problem gamblers, the ruling suggests that they cannot be held legally liable for failing to prevent individuals from engaging in harmful behavior.
Critics of the ruling argue that it absolves casinos of any responsibility for the negative consequences of problem gambling and undermines efforts to promote responsible gaming practices. By shifting the burden of responsibility onto individual gamblers, the ruling could exacerbate the risks faced by vulnerable individuals and perpetuate cycles of addiction and financial hardship.
