Bettor Who Says BetMGM Changed Rules During Big Slots Promotion Gets His Case Heard Next Month

Laurence Murk, the gambler who says that BetMGM changed the rules of a promotion after it had started, will get his day in court May 18 after a New Jersey Superior Court judge rescheduled it.

The case, originally scheduled for April 6, will be heard in the Superior Court of New Jersey’s Atlantic County location.

The case dates to a promotion Murk participated in in May 2021. At that time, he entered a contest in which a prize of $500,000 worth of “Casino Bonus” plus 100 free spins per day for a month would be awarded to the player who bet the most on a specific digital slot game each week of the month. The contest did not consider how well a player did in the contest, as it was focused on how much was wagered.

Murk developed a strategy, with plans to bet about $1.5 million in an attempt to win. Ten days into the contest, Murk was in first place. On the 11th day, after he had bet $350,000, a VIP whom BetMGM employees added to the contest as an “act of good will,” per court documents, appeared at the top of the leaderboard after betting $800,000. That player, “mjbroker11969,” was added because he was a high roller at the company’s brick-and-mortar casino, Murk says he was later told.

His court filing stated that when Murk inquired about how and why “mjbroker11969” had mysteriously jumped into the lead, his VIP host explained that the player had intended to enter the contest but did not. Instead, he played a different online slot, and BetMGM then purportedly agreed to move his play into the contest late.

While the addition of a new player partway through a contest might break the rules, BetMGM claims that per its terms and conditions, it can change the rules of any contest at any time.

Murk is seeking $2.5 million in damages under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act.

Judge: Contest wasn’t gambling

In recent months and via other court filings, the BetMGM legal team has telegraphed that it will argue that its terms and conditions allow the company to make changes to promotional rules without notice. In addition, it will argue that a gambling company cannot be sued when offering casino credit as a prize, because it isn’t possible to know how much a player will win or lose on a machine.

In an earlier hearing, NJ Superior Court Judge Danielle Walcoff suggested that the contest was not about gambling, so rules that apply to gambling are not applicable.

“I think this is a big distinction,” Walcoff said in October. “Yes, when we’re talking about gambling, the house always wins, right? But this, this is clear to me that the set up of this promotion had nothing to do with wins or losses of gambling. It was whoever wagered the most is going to get the most points and win. That has nothing to do with winning and losing. … The gambling aspect of this had nothing to do with this promotion.”

Following that interpretation and Walcoff’s decision not to dismiss the case, BetMGM lawyers appealed unsuccessfully to a higher court to have the case dismissed.

Murk also sought relief from DGE

The idea that a casino company can change rules in the middle of a promotion with no notice of explanation could be seen as unfair. It also raises the question of why any player would participate if it’s possible that the goalposts will be moved.

It appears Murk’s attorney, John Donnelly, will argue just that. In court documents, Donnelly wrote that “the actions of waiving the Rules for Broker were unfair, improper, illegal, and unconscionable,” particularly because BetMGM “admitted that Broker did not initially participate in the Competition and was not eligible to receive points.”

After BetMGM responded to Murk with its explanation, Murk then appealed to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE). The agency replied July 16, 2021, that “Such account adjustments are permissible, and, in this case, did not affect the outcome of the promotion.”

The DGE took no action, writing that “Regardless of the merits of a particular patron’s grievance, the Division does not offer private redress to individual patrons.” NJ Deputy Attorney General Charles Kimmel did suggest in the letter that Murk could pursue legal action in the letter.

Murk ultimately decided to file the complaint.

A pre-trial hearing is set for May 12.