Read The Fine Print: NJ Man Claims BetMGM Changed Rules In Middle Of Promotion

A lawsuit brought against BetMGM by a New Jersey man questions how a major gambling company could change the rules of a promotion in the middle of it. Larry Murk is suing the company after entering a promotion that was to award prize money to the player who bet the most on a specific digital slot game each week in May 2021.

Murk crafted a strategy to win the contest. The prize was “$500,000 of ‘Casino Bonus,'” per court records, as well as 100 free spins per day for one month. Murk wagered about $1.5 million in his quest to win the contest, but appeared to have been beaten out by a VIP whom BetMGM employees added to the contest as an “act of good will” because the player was a high roller at the company’s brick-and-mortar casino.

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

Eleven days into the contest and previously sitting in first place, Murk logged in to play, only to find that he was no longer in first place, having been replaced by a player whose name had previously not appeared on the leaderboard. The player, who used the screen name “mjbroker11969” and is known in court documents as “Broker,” was listed in first place with $800,000 played. Murk had played about $350,000 to that point.

Attorneys appeared before a New Jersey Superior Court judge Oct. 6 to discuss the case, which is now set for oral arguments Jan. 26, 2026.

BetMGM helps out VIP player

Murk says he contacted his VIP host Ryan Weiner, who was also Broker’s host, to question the situation. Weiner told Murk that Broker had failed to “opt in” to the contest initially, but BetMGM was now allowing him to. Per the rules of the contest, participants had to play designated digital slot games to qualify for the promotion. Broker apparently thought he was participating, but was not playing the correct games. BetMGM’s VIP department decided to transfer Broker’s play into the contest.

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

In court documents, Murk’s lawyer argues that not only was Broker incorrectly added to the contest, but that a BetMGM analyst “advised the BetMGM ‘VIP Team’ to manually adjust Broker’s Leader Board position to award him approximately 800,000 points. … Analyst admitted 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 took his complaint to New Jersey’s Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) but got no resolution, and claims in court documents that the BetMGM analyst “falsely advised the DGE that the Gift would not have impacted the winner of a first-place prize.”

Murk’s lawyer, John Donnelly of Donnelly Law LLC, 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.”

Multiple terms and conditions

In a hearing in a New Jersey Superior Court, Atlantic County Division, the issue being considered is not so much what happened, but whether or not it should have been allowed to happen. BetMGM argues that within its terms and conditions, the company has the right to “suspend, modify, remove or add any Gaming Service” any promotion for any reason at any time. And BetMGM argues that Murk signed off on these terms and conditions before joining the competition.

But Murk argues that it was his understanding that rules could only be changed after a notice of change was posted, and in this case, none was. 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.”

In court earlier this month, Donnelly said there are at least two sets of terms and conditions that a player in a competition must agree to — those for the competition itself and those for BetMGM as a whole. The language about changing a promotion at any time for any reason without notice, he said, is in BetMGM’s general terms and conditions, but was not part of the contest terms and conditions.

Defense lawyers said that Murk “admitted” to clicking on the terms and conditions, and went on to explain that had he not, he would not have been allowed to enter the contest. In addition, BetMGM’s lawyers said the company did not breach the contract for several reasons, including that it’s not OK to use “gambling winnings or gambling losses” to meet the “ascertainable losses” argument in gambling, but Judge Danielle Walcoff suggested that the contest did not meet the definition of gambling, potentially making the argument moot.

“I think this is a big distinction,” Walcoff said. “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.”

Defense lawyer Aalok Sharma of Stinson LLP, said that while he agreed, the issue Walcoff was pointing to was an argument under the Consumer Fraud Act, rather than the issue at hand.

Hearing was about getting clarity

Donnelly, Murk’s lawyer, made clear that key to his argument is that there are two sets of terms and conditions, one each for the promotion and BetMGM as a whole. He said that during depositions, a BetMGM compliance representative made it clear that the “rules are the terms and conditions,” and that there was a spot on the document for terms and conditions that read “to be hyperlinked,” but no link was available.

The same BetMGM representative also testified that he was not sure if a link was added. He also said that BetMGM is saying that it cannot show proof that Murk was directed to the full terms and conditions, or if Murk acknowledged them.

During the October hearing, Judge Walcoff spent more than an hour with attorneys in open court making sure she understood the case, which was filed nearly three years ago. The case was shuffled around the courthouse before landing on her desk. Apparently, some of the literal paperwork associated with the case was missing, misfiled, or messy enough that clarity was required. Once she understood Murk’s claims and BetMGM’s rebuttals, she heard some arguments from both legal teams.

No decision was made, but Walcoff seemed perplexed and asked many questions around the terms and conditions.