Appeals Court Says MGM Not at Fault in Gambler’s $24M Loss Case

A federal appeals court has decided that MGM Resorts cannot be held responsible for the huge gambling losses of a New Jersey man who said the casino giant exploited his addiction.

Judges Say Gambling Addiction Does Not Create Legal Liability for Casinos

Sam Antar, who calls himself a compulsive gambler and is related to the “Crazy Eddie” electronics chain founder, wanted compensation after he lost over $24 million in online bets from mid-2019 to early 2020. His lawsuit claimed MGM targeted him with constant promotions and personal contact, even though they knew about his gambling issue.

Antar claimed that MGM’s VIP program pushed him to keep gambling. He pointed out that the company’s hosts sent him over 1,800 messages. These messages offered bonuses and perks to make him play more on their online websites, like BetMGM and Borgata Online. He said this was a planned move to profit from his addiction.

However, on April 28, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals threw out these claims, reported Courthouse News Service. Senior US Circuit Judge Jane Roth spoke on behalf of the three judges. She said New Jersey law does not make casinos responsible for protecting gamblers who cannot control themselves. The judges stressed that state law and past cases have always shielded casinos from being blamed in such situations.

Appeals Court Says MGM Promotions Were Not Fraudulent or Misleading

The court also decided that the New Jersey Casino Control Act offers rules to protect the gaming industry while looking out for consumers, but does not create a duty to care for people who cannot stop gambling.

Antar’s lawyers tried to say that MGM’s marketing was like selling something harmful on purpose, comparing it to a sales trick used on someone who is swayed. However, the judges did not buy it. They pointed out that Antar chose to gamble, and the offers he got were just ads, not tricks.

The judges also threw out his claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, saying he had not shown that MGM did anything illegal or fraudulent. They found no sign that the promotional messages he got were dishonest about what they were or what they meant.

Antar also claimed that MGM’s services had no value because of his compulsive behavior, arguing that as an addict, he was sure to lose. The court called this claim clever but not convincing. They decided that even when a customer loses a bet, they still get the entertainment they paid for. The ruling is a big win for the gambling industry. It backs up existing legal protections and raises more questions about whether we need better consumer safeguards as worries about gambling addiction grow.