New Jersey Player Sues BetMGM for Changing Contest Rules to Help VIP Gambler

A New Jersey resident has sued BetMGM claiming the online casino giant changed the rules of a digital slot competition while it was ongoing to help a favored customer. The case, which brings up issues about safeguarding consumers in online gambling, will have oral arguments in January 2026 before the Superior Court of New Jersey in Atlantic County.

Player Seeks $2.5 Million After Alleging BetMGM Changed Contest Rules Midway

The plaintiff, Laurence Murk from Franklin Lakes, joined BetMGM’s “2 Million Dollar Super Series” in May 2021. This month-long promotion offered a $500,000 casino bonus and daily free spins to the top player. The ranking depended on the total amount bet on chosen slot games. Murk, who is paralyzed from the waist down, uses online gaming to have fun. He says he put about $1.5 million into bets after coming up with a plan to stay in first place on the leaderboard.

Court documents show Murk was leading the competition until May 11. That day, an unknown username topped the leaderboard with 800,000 points. Legal papers identify this player as “Broker,” who later turned out to be a big spender at BetMGM’s brick-and-mortar casino. Murk claims company staff added hundreds of thousands of leaderboard points to Broker’s account. This happened even though Broker did not meet the contest’s entry rules.

The lawsuit claims BetMGM’s VIP department put Broker in the competition as a “one-time courtesy,” which overturned the published rules without warning. Murk says the company broke its own promotion terms and violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act through misleading advertising and unfair business practices. He wants at least $2.5 million in damages.

Judge Weighs Whether BetMGM’s $2.5 Million Dispute Is a Gambling Case or Consumer Fraud

In his complaint, Murk states that BetMGM tricked him into keeping on betting thinking the contest was still fair, and then tried to lie about the situation to state regulators. The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement chose not to step in saying the issue seemed to be about promotional practices rather than gambling results.

BetMGM stands by its general terms and conditions as its defense. The company claims these allow it to change or cancel any promotion whenever it wants. The plaintiff’s lawyers say this wording was not in the specific contest rules that players agreed to when they joined the event. They also point out that BetMGM never announced any rule changes.

In October, Judge Danielle Walcoff held a hearing. She wondered if BetMGM’s actions fell under gambling rules or consumer law. She noted that the contest seemed to be about how much people spent, not about chance. The judge did not make a decision then. The court plans to look at the issue again next year as the case moves forward.