The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled a $3.3m lawsuit can proceed against BetMGM.
The decision means that the case brought against BetMGM by Michigan resident Jacqueline Davis will now be heard by the Wayne County Circuit Court. Davis alleges that she is owed $3.2m in online winnings by BetMGM.
The conflict relates to a five-day period in 2021, in which Davis claims she racked up almost $3.3m in winnings on the St Patrick’s Day-themed Luck o’ the Roulette game on BetMGM’s platform.
During the winning streak, she successfully withdrew $100,000 and was also congratulated by a member of BetMGM’s VIP team, per court records.
However, the day after the withdrawal, BetMGM informed Davis her account had been suspended due to the volume of play and indicated her significant winnings were due to an error, which, according to the court documents, was later confirmed to her attorney.
If a glitch occurs, BetMGM’s policy states that the affected player will be “put in the position they were in before the error occurred”.
Motion to dismiss
Following the communications, Davis sued for fraud, conversion and breach of contract under common law in the Wayne County Circuit Court.
However, the court sided with BetMGM, which argued that the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) has jurisdiction in such cases through the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA), which legalised online gambling in the state in 2019.
BetMGM were granted a motion for summary disposition in June 2022.
However, per court records, the MGCB confirmed to Davis’ attorney that its function is to monitor the actions of operators within its jurisdiction related to the state’s regulatory framework and is unable to rule in such disputes between operators and players.
Therefore, Davis again filed her case in the Wayne County Circuit Court, but was denied a reconsideration. This decision was then backed by the Court of Appeals, which dismissed her case in a split 2-1 decision.
As such, Davis went before the Supreme Court, where judges ruled unanimously in her favour, deeming that LIGA does not preempt common law in such situations.
Justice Brian Zahra wrote: “The Legislature enacted the (Lawful Internet Gaming Act) to legalise online gambling. We would be remiss not to acknowledge that this shift in public policy may give rise to new rights under the law.
“Because our existing common-law rules may be ‘adapted to current needs in light of changing times and circumstances,’ the common law is particularly well-suited to address ongoing developments arising from the LIGA.”
While the MGCB were unable to rule in the case for Davis, it did find BetMGM violated online gambling laws by not checking for any malfunction within a 24-hour period of Davis’ winnings, despite her having played for five days. Interestingly, even though the the MGCB found evidence of wrongdoing, it failed to enforce any type of financial penalty of punishment.
BetMGM removed the game from its platform following the incident.
Paddy Power
Although the legal wranglings surrounding the dispute have been ongoing for over four years, Davis may well be heartened by a decision made in favour of a customer in a similar case across the Atlantic.
In March, the UK’s High Court of Justice ordered Paddy Power to pay Corrine Pearl Durber compensation of £1m in relation to a disputed payout of a “Monster Jackpot”.
Durber claimed that the Flutter Entertainment subsidiary denied her a jackpot of £1.097m on the slot game Wild Hatter, citing a “software error”.
The incident occurred in October 2020, whilst Durber was playing the Wild Hatter slot on her iPad, she landed three jackpot symbols, activating the Jackpot Game Round of the slot.
The Jackpot Round of the Wild Hatter slot rewards players with prizes such as Cash Booster, Daily Jackpot, and Monster Jackpot, determined by spinning a wheel. Upon hitting ‘play,’ the wheel stopped on the Monster Jackpot prize, with the screen displaying to Durber that she had won £1m.
However, upon payout, Durber was awarded a Daily Jackpot prize of £20,000. She immediately contacted Paddy Power’s customer service team, who informed her that a “software error” had caused the incorrect display.
In his Court Ruling, Mr Justice Ritchie sided with Durber, ruling that rules promoted to customers should take precedence over “buried” terms and conditions.
