Callum Hamilton is a highly experienced gambler and poker player with over 15 years of experience in journalism, covering everything from sports to casinos and video games.
Read Full BioA New Jersey gambler has filed a lawsuit against BetMGM, alleging that it wrongfully changed the rules of a promotion while it was still ongoing.
Plaintiff Larry Murk decided to compete for a $500,000 casino bonus, which the platform offered to the player who wagered the most on a specific online slot game during May 2021. In pursuit of the top spot, Murk wagered nearly $1.5 million. However, he lost to a player added to the leaderboard during the contest.
The lawsuit comes amid a controversial month for BetMGM’s co-owner, MGM Resorts International. About a week ago, the gaming giant made a surprising last-minute withdrawal of a bid for a casino in Yonkers, New York. It had initially planned to develop its existing racino into a $2.2 billion casino.
Now, one online gambler claims BetMGM denied him a fair victory in a promotion as a result of VIP treatment for patrons in brick-and-mortar casinos.
BetMGM Added VIP Player as a Courtesy
After wagering around $350,000 in eleven days of the promotion, Murk was sitting comfortably in first place. However, he soon found himself overtaken by a player identified as “mjbroker11969.” The plaintiff claimed that the new leader appeared suddenly on the leaderboard. That’s after the company allowed him to apply roughly $800,000 in prior wagers toward the contest total.
The user, referred to in the suit as “Broker,” was a VIP player who played at the company’s land-based casino. The operator transferred over “mjbroker11969” to the contest as a gesture of goodwill. Murk claims that after contacting his VIP host, the host informed him that Broker had not opted into the contest. Instead, the company allowed him to do so retroactively, adding his accumulated points to his total.
Later, Murk claims he also learned that Broker had not been playing the specific game required to qualify for points in the contest. Instead, he was allowed to transfer his wagered amount over from other games. The lawsuit stated that “Broker was not entitled to Bonus Points, and that rather, the gift of points was a ‘one-time courtesy’ to a VIP player.”
Murk first took his case to New Jersey’s Division of Gaming Enforcement, but was unable to obtain a resolution. Murk further alleges that BetMGM misrepresented to the regulator that the gifted points to Broker would not impact the winner of the contest.
This led to the plaintiff filing a lawsuit, which ultimately resulted in a hearing in the New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic County. That is scheduled for this month.
BetMGM Terms & Conditions Disputed
BetMGM’s legal team argued that the terms and conditions of the promotion, which Murk agreed to, state that the casino reserves the right to change the rules of the contest at any time. However, Murk’s lawyers countered that the operator must publicly post any such changes before taking effect.
BetMGM lawyers further argued that the provision stating the platform may change any promotion at any time for any reason was outlined in their general terms and conditions, rather than the specific terms for the promotion.
Murk’s lawyer further stated that during depositions, a representative from BetMGM noted that the rules were the terms and conditions. Still, the platform replaced them with a line on the document that said “to be hyperlinked,” with no link.
During the hearing, the representative stated that he was unsure if BetMGM added a link. Additionally, they indicated that BetMGM could not demonstrate that Murk acknowledged the full terms and conditions.
The hearing took place over three years after Murk first filed the lawsuit. With the delay, Judge Danielle Walcoff intended to ensure that she fully understood the case. Walcoff spent over an hour in open court with lawyers from both sides, asking questions to both.
Not the First Time BetMGM Faces Criticism
The case is not the first time BetMGM has faced criticism for its promotions this year. In June, the company received a warning from the Dutch gambling regulator for using soccer star Lamine Yamal in an advertisement. The regulator warned BetMGM for violating a Dutch rule that prohibits the use of role models in gambling advertisements.
Meanwhile, in July, the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a gambler against BetMGM. It allowed her to pursue a lawsuit against the platform for unpaid winnings of $3.2 million.
BetMGM claimed that the payout was the result of a system glitch. Two lower courts and the Michigan Gaming Control Board agreed. However, the Court disagreed. It clarified that the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA) does not remove their rights to bring civil lawsuits against gambling operators, even as administrative oversight is in place.
