BetMGM Faces Third Circuit Appeal in Negligence Suit by Problem Gambler

The legal battle between BetMGM, a popular betting and gaming operator in the United States, and one alleged gambling addict continues. The aforementioned case, filed by Sam Antar, the nephew of the founder of the now-defunct “Crazy Eddie” electronics store chain, recently gained traction after the plaintiff filed an appeal.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Reviews Antar’s Case

Now, the lawsuit arrived in the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, where a three-judge panel heard the case, as confirmed by Casino Reports. Earlier this year, US District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo dismissed Antar’s lawsuit. In the legal claim, the person who described himself as a problem gambler, alleged that BetMGM enticed him with bonus offers, despite him already losing millions.

At the latest appeal hearing in a Philadelphia courthouse, the attorney representing Antar in the case, Matthew Litt, explained that the lawsuit doesn’t take issue with an operator that “passively” permits a problem gambler to continue losing money but rather focuses on “a casino aggressively enticing a known problem gambler.”

Litt pointed to a staggering number of more than 1,800 text messages that his client received from BetMGM. Concerningly, those messages were sent in only six months starting from June 2019. Antar has lost an estimated $30 million while gambling online with BetMGM.

The lawsuit alleges the operator engaged in negligent behavior. Litt explained that this is not because BetMGM didn’t take action but rather because the VIP hosts with which his client communicated were aware that he had a problem but continued to send him lucrative offers, bonuses and enticements.

BetMGM’s Defense Argues the Gambling Regulator Needs to Issue a Ruling in the Case

On the other hand, BetMGM’s attorney, Matthew McGill, explained that there are no regulations that prohibit contacting clients with enticements via text messages issued by the New Jersey gambling regulator, the Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE). Acknowledging that the text messages with bonus offers that Antar received is seen as one of the main issues in the lawsuit, the attorney deemed the DGE as the “more competent” body to issue a ruling in this particular case rather than court.

Currently, the Casino Control Act (CCA) doesn’t demand casino operators to identify or engage in specific duty of care in cases of problem gamblers. Dan Reinhart, another attorney representing BetMGM in the case reiterated the lack of such a requirement.

There are more than 10 licensed online casino operators offering their services in New Jersey. In that line of thought, during the recent appeal, the judges asked if Antar would have lost the money with other iGaming companies, even if BetMGM had taken action against him. The judges also questioned how the court can determine what amount would be spent by Antar without the enticements and to what extent the damages are caused by them. Tuesday’s hearing did not result in a ruling. The case is expected to return on Thursday.