Chavdar Vasilev is a journalist covering the casino and sports betting market sectors for CasinoBeats. He joined CasinoBeats in May 2025 and reports on industry-shaping stories across the US and beyond, including legislative debates, market...
Read Full BioThe Michigan Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in favor of gambler Jacqueline Davis, allowing her to pursue a lawsuit against BetMGM for unpaid winnings of $3.2 million. The decision overturns two court rulings that sided with the operator.
The case now heads back to Wayne County Circuit Court for a full trial.
Disputed Winnings & Legal Claims
In March 2021, Davis allegedly won around $3.2 million in six days playing the “Luck o’ the Roulette” game at BetMGM Online Casino. She successfully withdrew $100,000 with BetMGM, which congratulated her and offered assistance for further withdrawals.
However, shortly after, the operator emailed Davis to inform her that it had suspended her account due to the “volume of play generated.”
BetMGM launched an internal investigation into Davis’ play history and determined that a game malfunction had erroneously credited her account. As a result, the operator refused to pay the remaining winnings.
Davis filed a lawsuit in June 2021, alleging fraud, conversion, and breach of contract. She also filed a “patron dispute form” with the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB).
BetMGM responded by arguing that her claims were preempted by the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA) and fell under the jurisdiction of the MGCB.
The regulator did open an investigation. However, it clarified that its role is to enforce the law, not to engage in dispute resolution. MGCB found that BetMGM had violated rules by failing to report the malfunction but chose not to take disciplinary action.
The circuit court sided with BetMGM, dismissing Davis’ case, citing that LIGA preempted common-law claims.
The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The dissenting judge, however, argued that contract and tort claims such as Davis’s should be viable in court.
Supreme Court Disagrees with Lower Courts
The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts, ruling unanimously that LIGA does not preempt common law.
“There is no clear indication that the Legislature intended the LIGA to abrogate common‑law claims of fraud, conversion, and breach of contract relating to a gambling dispute between a patron and an online gaming licensee. These common‑law claims are also not inconsistent with the LIGA so as to be prohibited by MCL 432.304(3). The Court of Appeals erred by holding that the LIGA preempted plaintiff’s common‑law claims and that those claims were inconsistent with the LIGA such that they were prohibited by MCL 432.304(3).”
The Supreme Court also ruled that MGCB’s role is regulatory, and it does not hold exclusive jurisdiction over patron disputes.
Justice Zahra, writing for the court, stated that Michigan statutes must explicitly express intent to eliminate common-law rights, and LIGA does not. As a result, Davis’ lawsuit can proceed in civil courts.
Industry Significance
The case now returns to the Wayne County Circuit Court for further proceedings.
However, whether Davis wins or not, the Supreme Court decision sets a precedent. It clarifies that LIGA does not remove their rights to bring civil lawsuits against gambling operators, even as administrative oversight is in place.
The decision also affirms that gamblers have recourse beyond MGCB’s decisions. That could lead to similar challenges in other states. The ruling could also impact how online casinos such as BetMGM handle error resolutions and internal review protocols.
