NJ Court Rejects Early BetMGM Appeal, VIP Trial on Track

A New Jersey appeals court on Friday declined to step into a dispute between BetMGM and a customer who claims the company quietly changed the rules of an online casino promotion. 

This means the case is still on track for trial in the New Jersey Superior Court, Atlantic Division, on March 9, 2026.

Fast Ruling

BetMGM had asked the appellate court to dismiss the case before it reaches a jury, after Superior Court Judge Danielle Walcoff rejected a similar request last month. 

The appellate panel decided to issue a short, three-sentence ruling to deny the request for the time being, while making it clear that the company has the right to appeal again after a final decision at trial.

The panel argued that “Movant has not demonstrated sufficient justification to overcome the strong policies disfavoring piecemeal review of litigation. Brundage v. Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575, 599 (2008). Any interlocutory rulings by the trial court may be appealed by either party within a plenary appeal of an eventual final judgment.”

The Controversial Change of Rules

The lawsuit was brought by Larry Murk, who says BetMGM mishandled a month-long promotional contest on its Party Casino platform. According to the man, the operator allowed a high-roller to join the contest 11 days after it had already begun, without informing the rest of the participants.

According to court filings, Murk had wagered roughly $350,000 and made sure to carefully plan his gameplay based on the structure of the contest that rewarded players on their total wagers throughout the month, and not on their net winnings. 

BetMGM advertised a top prize consisting of “$500,000 worth of ‘Casino Bonus” plus 100 daily free spins for the duration of a month.

However, midway through the promotion, player “MJBroker11969,” referred to in the case as “Broker,” showed up at the top of the leaderboard out of the blue after wagering roughly $800,000 and without previously being part of the standings. 

Murk explained that, through a series of messages between him, his casino host, and others at BetMGM, he found out that “Broker” was a VIP customer at a retail casino who believed he was participating in the online contest but had not, in fact, been playing the right online slot games as required by the promo rules. 

Nonetheless, Party Casino decided to still count his play as part of the contest, which, to Murk’s belief, amounted to a rule change made on the fly, with zero notice beforehand, in violation of the contest’s own rules.

BetMGM pointed to its terms and conditions, which stated that the company has the right to “suspend, modify, remove or add any Gaming Service” at any time. The operator also pointed to another clause that says “rules may be modified by us at any time by posting the modified terms on the relevant page[s] of the platform.”

Murk, on the other hand, disputed that argument, arguing that the casino did not publish any notice and that it was not clear whether that language appeared in the contest-specific terms. 

A deposition by a BetMGM employee stated that the general terms applied to the promotion, and that terms specific to contests should also have been hyperlinked. It is still unclear if this had occurred or not. In the meantime, Murk is asking for $2.5 million in damages under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act. Judge Walcoff will not preside over the trial, which is expected to be reassigned to Judge Benjamin Podolnick due to court scheduling constraints.