Sue Online Casino
A coalition of seven casinos claims the state’s new “iLottery” games too closely resemble slot machines — and that they shouldn’t be marketed to 18-year-olds.
This is probably the most common complaint against an online casino. The problem is exacerbated by the facts that the casino's bank is located offshore and U.S. Banks don't want to deal with online casinos. If the casino mails you a check then you have to wait for an international mailing. Online casinos in Spain; Best Online Casinos for Baccarat and All the Secrets of the Game; The Best Real Slots at Online Casinos; Top slots by Amatic 2021; The wager for bonuses in an online casino; 8 Best Online Casinos for Mobile Phones in 2021; RTG Bonus Code; European Roulette: Rules, Bets, Tips and Tricks. All You Need to Know to Become a Pro. CAN YOU SUE AN ONLINE CASINO? Legal steps can be taken against anyone or business. It is often seen that when a deal has been breached, or an individual sees that he is not favored in an agreement, suing becomes an option for the aggrieved. There are various reasons we have experienced that led to an individual suing a casino.
Get a compelling long read and must-have lifestyle tips in your inbox every Sunday morning — great with coffee!
Seven casinos have sued the state Department of Revenue over iLottery, its offering of online games. Screenshot via the Pennsylvania Lottery
A coalition of seven Pennsylvania casinos has sued the state Department of Revenue over its online gaming system.
In a news release, the casinos blasted what they called “illegal, simulated casino-style online games” offered by the department-run Pennsylvania Lottery, which they note markets the games to residents who are 18 years old. Individuals must be 21 years old to enter the gaming floor of casinos or play slot machines.
“No one under the age of 21 is permitted on the gaming floor of a Pennsylvania casino, but lottery games that mimic the same exact slot machines that casinos offer are currently available online to Pennsylvanians as young as 18,” the release states.
The coalition filed a lawsuit in Commonwealth Court on Wednesday. The casinos are seeking an injunction to stop the state from hosting online games. Defendants include the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue as well its secretary, Daniel Hassell.
Pennsylvania launched online gambling games, called “iLottery” games, earlier this year. It became the seventh state to sell lottery games online after Gov. Tom Wolf signed Act 42, which expanded gambling to the internet as well as airports and truck stops in 2017.
The following seven casinos are petitioners in the lawsuit: Parx Casino; Hollywood Casino at Penn National Race Course, Harrah’s Philadelphia Casino and Racetrack; the Meadows Casino Racetrack Hotel; Stadium Casino; Valley Forge Casino Resort; and Mohegan Sun Pocono.
The casinos take issue with games that “have the same titles and/or themes as slot machines offered on Pennsylvania casino floors.” That includes, according to a news release, Volcano Eruption Reveal, Robin Hood, Super Gems, Big Foot and Monster Wins.
“The actions of the Pennsylvania Lottery are illegal,” coalition spokesperson David La Torre said in a statement. “To make matters even worse, the agency is promoting casino-style gambling to teenagers. Pennsylvania casinos must follow very stringent regulations on underage gaming or face millions of dollars in fines.”
In a statement, the Department of Revenue defended Act 42 and said it is reviewing the lawsuit.
“It is important to note that Act 42 authorized the Lottery’s new games, which are part of an effort to continue delivering to our customers games that they want and where they want while generating the additional funds to stabilize the Lottery Fund and provide vital services to older Pennsylvanians,” the agency said.
For help with a compulsive gambling problem, call 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537).
There is a strong public policy reason for voiding all contracts that concern illegal activity. A Shreveport casino used the help of an excellent attorney to rely on this principle when a customer brought a lawsuit against it because his use of a preferred slot machine was discontinued. Because there was no possible way for a contract to be formed there was not a legal avenue to bring the lawsuit under. Thus leaving the question, can you sue for never hitting the jackpot?
Matt Master alleged that he was given the exclusive use of their preferred slot machine for a 16 ½ month period by Red River Entertainment, LLC which does business by the name Sam’s Town Casino. Both Mr. Master and his wife were given the exclusive use of a slot machine. When they weren’t using it, the machine was “capped” by the Casino’s management, this prevented others from using the machine while he and his wife were taking a break. This “capping” period started off for periods of a couple of hours and eventually would be granted for periods up to a whole day.
The machine was selected by Mr. Master because the jackpot was around $101,000 and it had not hit a jackpot for 2 years. Over 16 ½ months, the jackpot of the machine increased to $155,300. Mr. Master alleged that the Casino’s management told him that the machine was probably close to hitting another jackpot. He also alleged that in 2013 he lost over $500,000 on the machine. After failing to hit the jackpot over 16 ½ months Mr. Master filed a complaint with the State Gaming Commission to investigate why the machine had never hit a jackpot. Once the Casino’s management learned of the complaint, Mr. Master was banned from the slot machine and the casino. Mr. Master filed a lawsuit based on his dismissal from the Casino as well as the slot machine never reaching a jackpot. The Casino responded by arguing that there was no cause of action. The Trial Court agreed and dismissed Mr. Master’s claims.
I Want To Sue Online Casino
On appeal, Mr. Master argued that he had an oral contract with the Casino due to implied consent based on the Casino’s actions.La. C.C. art. 1927. He claimed that the contract should have allowed him to allow continued use of the machine and that the Casino was giving him good information that the machine had to hit the jackpot soon. He claimed this was breached once the Casino ended his use of the machine. He also filed a reliance claim, claiming that he detrimentally relied on the Casino’s statement that the jackpot had to hit soon. Finally, Mr. Master claimed the Casino was unjustly enriched.
I Want To Sue Online Casino
In Louisiana, it is illegal to improperly alter a gaming device. This means that it is illegal to modify any gaming device in any way which affects the result of whether a wager wins or loses. It also means it is illegal to alter the machine in a way to change the random selection of winners.La. R.S. 27:30.5(B). Further, contracts are absolutely null when the contract violates either a rule of public order or when the subject of the contract is illicit or immoral.La. C.C. art. 2030.
The Appellate Court disagreed with all of Mr. Master’s arguments. Essentially the court viewed that Mr. Master was claiming that the Casino represented to him that they could change the random outcome of the machine by guaranteeing his exclusive use. It also determined that he was arguing that the displaying of jackpot increases was a signal that the Casino altered the machine in his favor. If either were true, the Casino would be violating the Louisiana gaming laws which would make any contract in relation to that illegal activity null and void.
The Appellate Court determined that the mere fact the Casino gave Mr. Master exclusive privileges and told him the jackpot had to hit soon were statements Mr. Master could not reasonably rely on. In the alternative, if the statements that the jackpot had to hit soon meant that the Casino was affecting the randomness of the machine the contract would violate the Louisiana gaming laws and the contract would be void. The Appellate Court agreed that the Trial Court’s dismissal for no cause of action was proper.
Sue Online Casino
The law in Louisiana regulates the gambling industry so that the outcomes are random. This is so the customers will always have a fair shot at winning and preferred customers do not receive better outcomes than a first-time visitor. The privileges granted to Mr. Master were exactly that, privileges. He did not receive any special information he could reasonably rely on and his lawsuit failed because of this.
Additional Sources:MATT MASTER V. RED RIVER ENTERTAINMENT, L.L.C. D/B/A SAM’S TOWN CASINO AND HOTEL
Written by Berniard Law Firm Blog Writer: John Trepel
Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Civil Litigation:Company Unsuccessful in Abuse of Process Claim After Lengthy Legal Battle