BetMGM Fraud Case Moves Forward Despite Attempts to Dismiss

A New Jersey Superior Court judge has ruled that a lawsuit accusing BetMGM of changing the rules of a high-profile casino contest as it was ongoing will proceed. The court rejected the gambling company’s efforts to have the case dismissed, meaning that the court action will proceed as normal. This development only adds to the bad news for the platform, which will soon undergo its second transformation.

BetMGM Allegedly Favored a High-Rolling Patron

Judge Danielle Walcoff denied BetMGM’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Laurence Murk, a Franklin Lakes resident. The plaintiff alleges that the company manipulated its “2 Million Dollar Super Series” promotion in favor of a high-rolling patron. This newest ruling means that Murk’s accusations of fraud, breach of contract, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act will advance to discovery.

In May 2021, Murk took part in BetMGM’s month-long online casino event, which promised a $500,000 bonus and daily free spins to the top player on a leaderboard based on total wagers. The lawsuit alleges that Murk, who is paralyzed from the waist down, devised a plan to stay ahead, betting roughly $1.5 million over a couple of months to remain ahead.

However, on May 11, the determined bettor suddenly lost his leadership position. Out of nowhere, a new player, known simply by the username “Broker,” appeared at the top of the leaderboard, having scored an unbelievable 800,000 points overnight. Murk suspects that BetMGM staff added those points to Broker’s account and allowed him into the promotion even though he had not played the qualifying games.

The Judge Pointed to Inconsistencies in BetMGM’s Conduct

Murk argues BetMGM’s conduct was deceptive and unlawful, arguing that the company induced him to keep gambling without intending to deliver on its promises. Murk also alleged that when he questioned the leaderboard modification, BetMGM attempted to confuse state regulators. However, the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) declined to intervene, classifying the dispute as a promotional issue.

Left to his own devices, Murk opted to pursue the case privately. Court documents allege that BetMGM may have placed Broker into the promotion as a one-time courtesy due to his high-roller status. The plaintiff argues that BetMGM did not provide notice of any rule change permitting this action. His legal team also insists that the general terms and conditions did not apply to the specific contest.

Judge Walcoff pointed out that Broker’s inclusion without informing players and BetMGM’s lack of evidence that the plaintiff agreed to contest-specific terms presented sufficient reasons to deny dismissal. If Murk wins, he could claim more than $2.5 million in compensation, including lost promotional prizes and projected earnings.