A disgruntled customer has won a crucial decision in her ongoing lawsuit against BetMGM.
Michigan resident Jacqueline Davis alleges that she is owed $3.2m in online winnings by BetMGM, and now her case will be heard in the Wayne County Circuit Court following the decision.
The conflict relates to a five-day period in 2021 when Davis claims she racked up almost $3.3m in winnings on Luck o’ the Roulette, a St Patrick Day-themed game on BetMGM’s platform.
During the winning streak, she successfully withdrew $100,000 of her winnings and was congratulated by a member of BetMGM’s VIP team, per court records.
However, the day after the withdrawal, Davis was informed her account had been suspended by BetMGM. The operator cited volume of play for the closure and indicated her significant winnings were caused by an error, which, according to court documents, was later confirmed to her attorney.
BetMGM’s policy states that the affected player will be “put in the position they were in before the error occurred” if a glitch occurs.
Ongoing court battles
Following the communications from BetMGM, Davis sued the operator for fraud, conversion and breach of contract under common law in the Wayne County Circuit Court.
However, the court sided with BetMGM and granted it a motion for summary disposition in June 2022.
BetMGM successfully argued that the state regulator, the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB), has jurisdiction over such cases through the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA) – which legalised online gambling in the state in 2019.
However, per court records, the MGCB confirmed to Davis’ attorney that its function is to monitor the actions of operators related to the state’s regulatory framework and is unable to rule in such disputes between operators and players.
While the MGCB were unable to rule in the case for Davis, it did find BetMGM violated online gambling laws by not checking for any malfunction within a 24-hour period of Davis’ winnings, despite her having played for five days.
BetMGM removed the game from its platform following the incident.
Following confirmation of its duties by the MGCB, Davis again filed her case in the Wayne County Circuit Court, but was denied a reconsideration. This decision was then backed by the Court of Appeals, which dismissed her case in a split 2-1 decision.
As such, Davis went before the Supreme Court, where judges ruled unanimously in her favour, deeming that LIGA does not preempt common law in such situations.
Justice Brian Zahra wrote: “The Legislature enacted the (Lawful Internet Gaming Act) to legalise online gambling. We would be remiss not to acknowledge that this shift in public policy may give rise to new rights under the law.
“Because our existing common-law rules may be ‘adapted to current needs in light of changing times and circumstances,’ the common law is particularly well-suited to address ongoing developments arising from the LIGA.”
Hope from the UK
Although the legal wranglings surrounding the dispute have been ongoing for over four years, Davis may well be heartened by a decision made in favour of a customer in a similar case across the Atlantic.
In March, the UK’s High Court of Justice ordered Paddy Power to pay Corrine Pearl Durber compensation of £1m in relation to a disputed payout of a “Monster Jackpot”.
Durber claimed that the Flutter Entertainment subsidiary denied her a jackpot of £1.097m on the slot game Wild Hatter, citing a “software error”.
The incident occurred in October 2020, whilst Durber was playing the Wild Hatter slot on her iPad, she landed three jackpot symbols, activating the Jackpot Game Round of the slot.
The Jackpot Round of the Wild Hatter slot rewards players with prizes such as Cash Booster, Daily Jackpot, and Monster Jackpot, determined by spinning a wheel. Upon hitting ‘play,’ the wheel stopped on the Monster Jackpot prize, with the screen displaying to Durber that she had won £1m.
However, upon payout, Durber was awarded a Daily Jackpot prize of £20,000. She immediately contacted Paddy Power’s customer service team, who informed her that a “software error” had caused the incorrect display.
In his Court Ruling, Mr Justice Ritchie sided with Durber, ruling that rules promoted to customers should take precedence over “buried” terms and conditions.