Lawsuit by Gambler Against BetMGM Gains Traction

Earlier this year, the nephew of the founder of the now-defunct “Crazy Eddie” electronics store chain and self-described problem gambler, Sam Antar, filed an appeal in his case against BetMGM. The appeal followed a dismissal of the lawsuit by District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo in January this year.

Oral Arguments to Take Place in the Albert Branson Maris Courtroom

Now, Antar’s legal battle is once again picking up speed considering that the two sides are scheduled to engage in oral argument next month. As announced by Casino Reports, the lawsuit is set to continue with the oral argument before the Albert Branson Maris Courtroom in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on December 10, 2024.

During the upcoming hearing, BetMGM and Antar’s defense will have 15 minutes to address key topics in the lawsuit. The defense of each side will have the opportunity to hear a statement from one or multiple attorneys but within the designated timeframe.

The oral arguments are expected to answer “whether Antar sufficiently pleaded an ascertainable loss by demonstrating either an out-of-pocket loss or a deprivation of the benefit of one’s bargain.” At the same time, the parties will hear the opinion of each side on whether or not claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act require “a misstatement or deceit.”

In addition, the defense of the two parties would discuss whether or not the plaintiff obtained benefits and whether his agreement with BetMGM was solely related to gambling or “something more.” BetMGM and Antar’s defense are expected to explain: “If Antar need not show an out-of-pocket loss or deprivation of the benefit of his bargain, then what must he show, and under what authority.”

The Plaintiff Argued He Lost Millions Gambling with the Operator

In the lawsuit, Antar alleged that he lost some $30 million while gambling with BetMGM. The heavy losses incurred between May 2019 and January 2020 with the self-described problem gambler claiming that the operator offered him lucrative bonuses in a move that proved to make matters worse, pushing him further into losing more money.

However, a decision by US District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo earlier this year dismissed the gambler’s lawsuit, revealing that the Casino Control Act (CCA) supersedes the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). While Antar claimed BetMGM breached the CFA, the judge’s decision disagreed considering the coverage of the CCA.

The decision highlighted the complexities when it comes to gambling regulation and the importance of duty of care for licensed operators. The Judge’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit came in light of the CCA’s lack of duty of care in New Jersey which would require the gambling providers to be extra cautious and not incentivize patrons who may be exhibiting problematic behavior. While it’s up to the lawmakers to fix this, industry stakeholders have already sounded the alarm about the importance of such a duty of care to protect vulnerable consumers.