Lynnae is a journalist covering the intersection of technology, culture, and gambling. She has more than five years of experience as a writer and editor, with bylines at SlashGear and MakeUseOf. On the iGaming side,...
Read Full BioWhen a Michigan man voluntarily signed up for the state’s Disassociated Persons List (DPL) and Responsible Gaming Database (RGD) on December 4, 2024, he thought the move would shield him from gambling ads and promotions.
Instead, he alleges that he’s still being targeted with casino ads and trapped in a system that won’t give him a way out. His experience is now at the center of a lawsuit that could test just how far the state’s self-exclusion rules can go.
The individual, who spoke exclusively to CasinoBeats, has requested anonymity for privacy reasons. He has filed a federal lawsuit, pro se, against the Michigan Gaming Control Board (Case No. 25-13025) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The case follows an earlier complaint filed in the Michigan Court of Claims (Case No. 25-000117-MM), where a judge denied his request for a preliminary injunction that would have temporarily removed him from the state’s exclusion lists while the dispute was pending.
He explained to CasinoBeats that he filed the federal case because “the Court of Claims can’t give me the relief I’m requesting.”
The lawsuit names two of the Michigan Gaming Control Board’s top officials: Executive Director Henry Williams and Board Chair Jim Ananich, as defendants in their official capacities.
In the complaint, he argues that the state’s DPL and RGD violate his constitutional rights by locking him into a five-year gambling ban while failing to uphold their statutory duty to protect him from promotional gambling emails.
How Michigan’s Self-Exclusion Program Works
Michigan residents have two options if they want to self-exclude or ban themselves from the state’s regulated gambling market: registering with the DPL and/or the RGD.
A person who adds themselves to the DPL agrees to a lifetime ban from Detroit’s commercial casinos. However, they can apply to have themselves removed from the list after five years. The ban doesn’t apply to the state’s tribal casinos because they don’t participate in the program.
The RGD deals with online gaming and sports betting, and works much like the DPL. The biggest difference is that an individual can choose to self-exclude for one or five years. Once that time is up, they’re automatically removed from the database.
Under state law (MCL 432.225[9]), once a person is on the list, licensed operators may not advertise or promote gambling to them. These types of programs are found in many states, where individuals can voluntarily opt out of gambling venues and platforms to reduce temptation.
The plaintiff joined both the DPL and the RGD in December 2024, believing that by doing so, he’d stop receiving gambling offers and promotional materials — a promise he now says the system that was supposed to protect him failed to deliver.
When the Ads Didn’t Stop
While there’s certainly something to be said about how watching sports can sometimes feel like sitting in a sportsbook, when a person voluntarily signs up for Michigan’s self-exclusion programs, most people would probably agree that they shouldn’t still be getting gambling promotions in their inbox.
Yet, that’s exactly what he says happened: the gambling ads didn’t stop. According to filings in the Michigan Court of Claims, the plaintiff began receiving promotional emails from BETMGM and MGM Grand Detroit shortly after enrolling in the self-exclusion programs.
Even though these establishments are legally prohibited from sending these promotions to a person on the DPL and RGD, he continues to receive them to this day. In response, he has filed repeated complaints with the Michigan Gaming Control Board, including dozens of calls, emails, and voicemails, in an attempt to report what he believed were clear violations of state law.
In his Court of Claims filings, he wrote that “the MGCB has failed to take effective action to stop the solicitations, leading to their continued receipt,” calling it “a direct violation of the MGCB’s statutory duty to enforce MCL 432.225 and protect individuals on the DPL and RGD.”
The plaintiff attached copies of the emails with the ads to his complaint, arguing that they show that self-exclusion in Michigan fails to provide the protection it promises.
He argues that the combination of continued advertisements and the state’s refusal to remove him from the exclusion lists shows how the system harms participants without providing the protection it promises, a claim he’s now testing in federal court.
He told CasinoBeats: “I don’t want to be part of a list that doesn’t protect me from the things they said they would protect me from. By not enforcing the statute, they’re not protecting me.”
His Legal Argument
After the Michigan Court of Claims denied his request for a preliminary injunction, saying it lacked the authority to remove him from the state’s exclusion lists, he viewed suing in federal court as the only way to seek relief for what he says was the state’s failure to enforce its own protections.
In the pro se complaint filed on September 23, he argues that Michigan’s DPL and RGD violate his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, writing: “By enforcing a statutory scheme that binds Plaintiff to the DPL/RGD for five years while simultaneously failing to enforce MCL 432.225(9), Defendants deprive Plaintiff of liberty and privacy interests without due process of law.”
He goes on to allege that the Michigan Gaming Control Board has failed to conduct “meaningful or forensic investigations” into his complaints about receiving gambling promotions despite being on the DPL and in the RGD.
Lawmakers, including Senator Rosemary Bayer and Representative Jason Morgan, have also raised the issue with the Michigan Gaming Control Board, contacting the board on his behalf, asking why the plaintiff was still receiving gambling ads.
Because state law provides no mechanism for early removal from the exclusion lists, he argues he remains “bound by the DPL/RGD for five years, without meaningful protection against solicitations and without any effective remedy at law.”
His lawsuit also raised an equal protection claim, saying that the state enforces penalties against individuals on the self-exclusion lists while failing to hold licensed operators accountable for marketing violations. He says this disparity leaves self-excluded persons vulnerable to continued solicitations with no effective remedy. He told CasinoBeats that: “To this day, they have not been held accountable.”
Outside the US, other cases have raised questions about operator responsibility, including one where a British Court is considering refunding a gambler’s almost £1.5 million ($2 million) losses from sports betting at Betfair.
How the State, BetMGM, and MGM Grand Detroit Responded
In response to the initial lawsuit filed in the Michigan Court of Claims, the Michigan Gaming Control Board stated that, after reviewing the allegations, it found no evidence that BetMGM or MGM Grand Detroit had violated state law.
The regulator’s investigative report, included as an exhibit in the case against the Michigan Gaming Control Board, states that BetMGM: “closed [his] account, scrubbed it from marketing lists, and found no evidence of promotional emails sent after self-exclusion.”
The report goes on to say that out of the five marketing emails he provided them with, only one looked like it was an “actual marketing campaign and BetMGM reported it did not target [the individual] for the promotion.” The Board stated that the remaining emails were unrelated or unverifiable.
As a result, their investigation concluded that BetMGM and MGM Grand Detroit had complied with their obligations under Michigan’s self-exclusion rule and closed that case without taking any further action.
The plaintiff disputes those findings, claiming he fully cooperated with the Michigan Gaming Control Board investigation. According to emails shared with CasinoBeats, he agreed to let the Michigan Gaming Control Board’s IT department conduct a forensic review of his email account and emails to verify that he had indeed received promotional gambling emails after enrolling in the exclusion programs.
BetMGM and MGM Grand Detroit are not parties to the federal case but were central to the state’s earlier investigation. CasinoBeats reached out to MGM Resorts International for comment but did not receive a response.
Where the Case Stands
The case is pending in federal court. At the time of publication, the state has not yet filed its response to the lawsuit.
In an emailed statement to CasinoBeats, Michigan Gaming Control Board Public Information Officer Lisa A. Keith said: “The Michigan Gaming Control Board does not comment on pending litigation.”
Unless the court intervenes, the plaintiff will have to wait until 2029 before he’s eligible for removal from the Michigan DPL and the RGD. Regulators claim the system is functioning as intended. However, the plaintiff insists it’s not, saying he continues to get emails, “roughly every week.”
When asked about what outcome he hopes for besides being removed from the lists, he said: “An apology, action items on how they will go about fixing this so it doesn’t happen again.”
In the meantime, the man who once trusted the system to protect him from gambling advertisements says he’s still waiting for that protection.
