By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
An online gambling patrol can bring common-law claims before a circuit court against a gaming licensee, the Michigan Supreme Court has unanimously ruled.
In Davis v. BetMGM, LLC (MSC Docket No. 166281), written by Justice Brian Zahra, the court recently ruled the Legislature did not intend to abrogate potential common-law claims when enacting the Lawful Internet Gaming Act.
Additionally, the claims in the case are not inconsistent with LIDA so as to be prohibited by state law.
The case involves Jacqueline Davis, who won a significant amount of money playing an online roulette game. She withdrew $100,000 from the withdrawal window at MGM Grand in Detroit, and shortly after, her account was flagged. The company hosting the online game investigated and said Davis' account was erroneously credited due to an error in the game. Davis' account, which had a balance of $3.2 million, was then zeroed out.
Davis is accusing BetMGM of fraud, conversion and breach of contract.
The lower courts ruled the claims were preempted by LIGA, which puts responsibility to the Michigan Gaming Control Board to govern online gaming. However, the Gaming Control Board indicated to the plaintiff that it would not determine the merits of any outstanding dispute or litigation between an authorized participant and an internet gaming provider.
Zahra wrote that there is no question the Legislature intended to abrogate some aspects of Michigan's common law when enacting LIGA.
"Somewhat less clear is whether the Legislature, by providing a right to gamble online, intended to abrogate common-law claims in circuit court that relate to a gambling dispute between a patron and a licensee," Zahra wrote. "We clarify that the first question presented in this case is one of abrogation. We must ask whether the Legislature intended to abrogate the common-law claims asserted by plaintiff against defendant, the host of an online casino. Applying the well-established law of abrogation to this case, we hold that there is no clear indication that the Legislature intended the LIGA to abrogate the common-law claims raised in this litigation."
Additionally, the court ruled that although the Gaming Control Board may take corrective measures on some matters under LIGA, it does not mean the board is required to take corrective measures on all matters to resolve a dispute between a patrol and a licensee.
"Further, that the MGCB may act does not indicate that a complaint filed with the MGCB constitutes the exclusive remedy for an aggrieved consumer of online gambling activity," Zahra wrote.
Gongwer News Service
An online gambling patrol can bring common-law claims before a circuit court against a gaming licensee, the Michigan Supreme Court has unanimously ruled.
In Davis v. BetMGM, LLC (MSC Docket No. 166281), written by Justice Brian Zahra, the court recently ruled the Legislature did not intend to abrogate potential common-law claims when enacting the Lawful Internet Gaming Act.
Additionally, the claims in the case are not inconsistent with LIDA so as to be prohibited by state law.
The case involves Jacqueline Davis, who won a significant amount of money playing an online roulette game. She withdrew $100,000 from the withdrawal window at MGM Grand in Detroit, and shortly after, her account was flagged. The company hosting the online game investigated and said Davis' account was erroneously credited due to an error in the game. Davis' account, which had a balance of $3.2 million, was then zeroed out.
Davis is accusing BetMGM of fraud, conversion and breach of contract.
The lower courts ruled the claims were preempted by LIGA, which puts responsibility to the Michigan Gaming Control Board to govern online gaming. However, the Gaming Control Board indicated to the plaintiff that it would not determine the merits of any outstanding dispute or litigation between an authorized participant and an internet gaming provider.
Zahra wrote that there is no question the Legislature intended to abrogate some aspects of Michigan's common law when enacting LIGA.
"Somewhat less clear is whether the Legislature, by providing a right to gamble online, intended to abrogate common-law claims in circuit court that relate to a gambling dispute between a patron and a licensee," Zahra wrote. "We clarify that the first question presented in this case is one of abrogation. We must ask whether the Legislature intended to abrogate the common-law claims asserted by plaintiff against defendant, the host of an online casino. Applying the well-established law of abrogation to this case, we hold that there is no clear indication that the Legislature intended the LIGA to abrogate the common-law claims raised in this litigation."
Additionally, the court ruled that although the Gaming Control Board may take corrective measures on some matters under LIGA, it does not mean the board is required to take corrective measures on all matters to resolve a dispute between a patrol and a licensee.
"Further, that the MGCB may act does not indicate that a complaint filed with the MGCB constitutes the exclusive remedy for an aggrieved consumer of online gambling activity," Zahra wrote.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
