Share
The Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) and other parties have filed amicus curiae briefs in advance of the Supreme Court hearing the case of Jacqueline Davis v. BetMGM. While casino companies and the American Gaming Association have offered arguments to the defendant, the regulator is backing Davis.
Davis claims that the online casino refused to pay her $3.2 million, which she won at roulette over the course of five days. BetMGM says that her apparent profits weren’t genuine, having resulted from a glitch that multiplied winnings from the game before crediting the funds to her .
The Michigan Supreme Court is preparing hear the case, but won’t return a verdict on the original claim. A lower court ruled that Davis couldn’t bring the case in the first place, and that’s what the Supreme Court will determine.
BetMGM argues that Davis’s complaint should have gone through the MGCB, not the court system. However, the MGCB’s brief sides with the plaintiffs, stating that the regulator does not believe that it has jurisdiction over the matter. Specifically, it says that the nature of Davis’s complaint makes it a matter of contract law, not a gaming violation.
In the document, the MGCB explained its position, in relation to the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA):
The circuit court has jurisdiction to hear and decide Davis’s claims against BetMGM when the claims are not related to a violation of [the Lawful Internet Gaming Act] and the rules. The Board’s jurisdiction is focused on licensing and regulation matters.
“The Board lacks jurisdiction over common-law or other civil claims that may arise between an authorized participant and a licensee (for example, this lawsuit, in which Davis alleges that BetMGM engaged in tortious conduct and breached the parties’ contract) and are not based on a violation of LIGA and the rules.”
MGCB oversees LIGA, but claiming this case is outside scope
The MGCB is in charge of upholding LIGA, which was upheld by a Michigan Court of Appeals in a September 2023 decision. Detroit casinos even filed briefs themselves, claiming this is within the realm of the MGCB.
That is how the lower courts have ruled it, too, so far. A Wayne County Circuit Court concluded that Davis couldn’t bring her lawsuit forward. The court ruled her claims were preempted by LIGA.
However, the MGCB sees this particular case differently, especially because it does not have any authority over unlicensed individuals, such as gamblers. It explained:
The Board does not have any jurisdiction over a non-licensee authorized participant like Davis. LIGA grants the Board “jurisdiction over every person licensed by the board[.] MCL 432.305(1).
LIGA does not expressly grant the Board jurisdiction over non-licensees, except to the extent that it can ‘take enforcement action’ against non-licensees who conduct unlicensed, illegal internet gaming in Michigan.
The MGCB does have the jurisdiction to fine a licensed operator like BetMGM if it has violated regulatory rules or the state’s gaming laws. For instance, BetMGM allegedly took three days to report the error, which could be a violation. However, that wouldn’t result in any compensation for Davis. Her claim for damages relies on the allegation that BetMGM breached its contract with the .
The Supreme Court’s decision will set an important precedent for Michigan, determining the correct venue for this time of complaint against an online casino operator. Should the highest court rule in Davis’ favor, the case goes back to the lower court for trial. Other players would similarly be able to sue operators for issues such as contractual violations and fraud.
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts, then based on that precedent, Michigan gamblers will have no recourse other than regulatory complaints.
Background of case involving Jacqueline Davis
Davis had accumulated $3.2 million in her BetMGM playing Luck o’ the Roulette slot in March 2021. However, she was only able to withdraw $100,000 worth of those winnings in cash at MGM Grand Detroit. Her was suspended shortly thereafter as BetMGM began investigating what it said was a glitch, and she never received the rest of her balance.
BetMGM refused to pay Davis the remainder of her winnings due to a malfunction in the game. The original complaint in the 2021 stated that the malfunction “resulted in certain win amounts being multiplied when transferred from the onscreen balance to the patron’s wallet. This resulted in an inaccurate and inflated amount being awarded to Ms. Davis’s wallet despite Ms. Davis not actually winning that amount in the game.”
No court has ruled on the merits of Davis’s complaint, as it was thrown out for jurisdictional reasons. The Supreme Court may return her case to the lower court and force a trial. However, that doesn’t guarantee a win for Davis, only that she will receive her day in court.
