Attorneys Dicker As David Vs. Goliath Casino Contest Case Set To Start In New Jersey

Despite dismissal attempts by BetMGM, the case in which a New Jersey man questions how a major gambling company could change the rules of a promotion in the middle of it is set to start in the state’s Superior Court for Atlantic County Monday morning.

Over the last two weeks, lawyers on both sides have parried over BetMGM’s right in “presenting, arguing, characterizing, or interpreting certain of the documents” in the plaintiff’s package. The lawyer for plaintiff Laurence Murk filed a “Motion in Limine” May 4, and Judge Benjamin Podolnick will rule on it Monday at 9:30 a.m. when the trial begins. Such a motion is a request to a judge to exclude or include certain arguments, documents, or testimony ahead of a jury being seated.

In the motion, attorney John Donnelly of Donnelly Law LLC wrote that BetMGM “refused to address allegations in the complaint” and “repeatedly responded with an improper, evasive, and unauthorized statement in violation of the Court rules.” BetMGM lawyers from Connell Foley LLP and Stinson LLP argued the motion is “clearly a Motion to Strike for insufficiency filed out of time and, therefore, disguised as a Motion in Limine.” They further wrote that the filing is “utterly devoid of any legal support or controlling judicial precedent.”

Plaintiff asking for $2.5 million

The decision on the motion will tip off what is likely to be a multiple-day trial in which a jury will ultimately decide if BetMGM improperly changed the rules of a contest. Murk is asking for $2.5 million in damages under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act after, he claims, BetMGM added a new player 10 days into a digital slot tournament in 2021. The case was initially filed in November 2022.

The contest was scored based on which player spent the most money in May 2021. Murk had calculated how much he had to play each day to be at the top of the leaderboard, and was there until BetMGM added “MJBroker11969.” At the time, Murk had played $350,000. When “Broker” was added, he had played $800,000, and BetMGM employees say he had bet the money, but mistakenly played the wrong digital slots game.

Murk says that when he asked about “Broker,” he was told that the player was a BetMGM VIP who was added to the contest as an “act of good will” because he was a high roller at the company’s Atlantic City retail casino. Court documents indicate that the top prize was “$500,000 worth of ‘Casino Bonus’” and 100 free spins per day for one month.

T&C among issues in question

In prior dealings with the court, it’s clear that one key issue is whether or not Murk agreed to contest’s terms and conditions. A BetMGM representative said that the company’s general terms and conditions were also the contest terms and conditions and could be accessed by a hyperlink. There was allegedly no hyperlink available, and a BetMGM compliance officer told the court he was not sure if a link had ever been added. The company has been unable to provide proof one way or the other.

Among the terms and conditions is a passage that specifies BetMGM can “suspend, modify, remove, or add any Gaming Service” to any promotion for any reason at any time.

BetMGM has also contended 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.

The first judge on the case — Danielle Walcoff — said she didn’t view the contest as gambling because it was about money spent rather than won and lost, and therefore gambling rules should not apply.