NJ Appellate Court Denies BetMGM Appeal In Alleged Breach Of Contract, Fraud Case
Case in which customer says a VIP was allowed to jump the line set for a March 9, 2026 trial
2 min
A New Jersey state appellate court Friday rejected an appeal from BetMGM et al in a case in which a customer says the company allowed a VIP to enter a promotional contest late. Also on Friday, the trial date in Murk v BetMGM et al was shifted from Jan. 26, 2025 to March 9, 2026 in the state’s superior court, Atlantic Division. BetMGM appealed ahead of that trial date.
In its three-sentence ruling on BetMGM’s request to dismiss the case, the appellate court left open the door for BetMGM to take the more customary route and appeal following a final superior court decision in the case. The casino company appealed to the higher court last month after superior court judge Danielle Walcoff denied a request in her court.
The case is a David-vs-Goliath setup in which plaintiff Larry Murk claims that during a promotional contest on BetMGM’s Party Casino platform, the casino company inserted a VIP player 11 days into the contest with no warning.
The player, “MJBroker11969,” referred to in court documents as “Broker,” appeared in first place in the contest having bet $800,000 without having previously been on the leaderboard. At that point Murk had wagered $350,000 in a promotion that would name a winner based on how much a user bet over a month-long period, versus how much a player won. Murk had calculated how much he needed to bet to win the “$500,000 worth of ‘Casino Bonus’” and 100 free spins per day for one month.
The appearance of “Broker” at the top of the standings led to a string of back-and-forth between Murk, his casino host, and others during which it was revealed that “Broker” was a retail-casino VIP, and that he thought he was playing the contest, but had not played the correct online slots. Party Casino decided to reclassify that play to within the contest where Murk was competing. Murk argues that BetMGM changed the rules of the promotion, but did not inform participants. Adding a new player partway through a contest appears to break the rules.
T&Cs not clear, or maybe even available
BetMGM claims that in its terms and conditions, it states it can change the rules of any contest at any time.
Per the BetMGM general terms and conditions, the company has the right to “suspend, modify, remove or add any Gaming Service” for any reason at any time. Another section of the terms and conditions reads “The rules may be modified by us at any time by posting the modified terms on the relevant page[s] of the platform.”
Murk argues that no notice was given, and that the language about changing a promotion does appear in BetMGM’s general terms and conditions, but it’s not clear if the language was in the contest terms and conditions. Further, a BetMGM employee said in a deposition that the general terms and conditions are also the terms and conditions for the promotion, but that contest-specific terms and conditions should have been hyperlinked. It’s not clear if they were.
Murk is seeking $2.5 million in damages under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act. Walcoff will not preside over the trial. At the last hearing, she indicated that due to docket loads, the case is being shifted to Judge Benjamin Podolnick.
