Michigan Supreme Court Sides with Bettor, Opens Door for Lawsuits Against Gambling Sites
The Michigan Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that online gamblers can sue operators like BetMGM in court, a decision that could reshape the power dynamic between players and the industry. The ruling allows a lawsuit from Jacqueline Davis, who is seeking over $3 million in winnings that BetMGM refused to pay, to proceed.
A “Heater of Epic Magnitude” Ends in Court
The case stems from a 2021 incident where Jacqueline Davis went on what the court called a “heater of epic magnitude” playing the online game “Luck o’ the Roulette.” BetMGM voided her winnings, claiming they were the result of a “glitch” or “malfunction.”
Lower courts had dismissed Davis’s lawsuit, agreeing with BetMGM’s argument that the state’s Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA) gave the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) exclusive authority over such disputes.
In a powerful dissenting opinion at the time, Judge Kathleen Feeney warned this interpretation lent “a new meaning to the old gambling adage that the House always wins.”
Supreme Court Overturns Lower Rulings
The Michigan Supreme Court has now completely overturned those decisions. In the court’s opinion, Justice Brian Zahra stated that the state legislature never intended for LIGA to block gamblers from bringing common-law claims like breach of contract or fraud.
The court clarified that while the MGCB can take action against operators, it is not the sole remedy for an aggrieved customer. “Simply because the Michigan Gaming Control Board may take corrective measures on some matters… does not mean that the [board] is required to take corrective measures on all matters to resolve a dispute between a patron and licensee,” Zahra wrote. The case will now return to the Wayne County Circuit Court for further proceedings.
This ruling is a victory for player rights in Michigan. Before this decision, bettors felt they had little recourse outside of the state regulator. Davis’s lawyers argued in their appeal that without the ability to sue, their client “has no remedy” and casinos could “commit fraud against a patron with impunity.”
The Supreme Court’s decision affirms that the court system is an appropriate venue for these disputes. “Because our existing common-law rules may be ‘adapted to current needs in light of changing times and circumstances,’ the common law is particularly well-suited to address ongoing developments arising from the LIGA,” Zahra wrote.
The Fight for $3 Million Continues
The court’s decision does not mean Jacqueline Davis has won her $3 million. It simply gives her the right to make her case in court. The core dispute over whether the winnings were legitimate or the result of a glitch remains to be decided.
BetMGM’s lawyers have maintained that their rules “make abundantly clear that a malfunction will void all winnings.” However, Davis’s legal team has argued that the company has provided little concrete evidence of what actually happened.
“They say it malfunctioned, but they really don’t have much evidence,” said attorney Mark Granzotto. The case will now move forward, setting a major precedent for how online gambling disputes are handled in the state.
Recommended