The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Sam A. Antar, who describes himself as a compulsive gambler.
Antar claimed that BetMGM, the Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa, and their parent companies acted improperly by encouraging him to keep gambling even though they knew about his addiction. He said they lured him in with bonuses and other incentives, and as a result, he ended up losing more than $24 million.
The appeals court agreed that Antar’s claims didn’t hold up under the Consumer Fraud Act or negligence law. It backed the January 2024 decision by the US District Court for the District of New Jersey to dismiss the case.
Antar vs BetMGM appeal heard this afternoon in Third Circuit Court of appeals.
“This case is not about a casino [operator] passively permitting an addicted gambler to continue to lose,” plaintiff’s attorney Matthew Litt told the three-judge panel in a Philadelphia courthouse.…
— Casino Reports (@casino_reports) December 11, 2024
Court finds Antar was aware of the risks of gambling with BetMGM
Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Jane R. Roth explained, “Antar fails to plead that the defendants engaged in unconscionable business conduct under the CFA” and “does not plausibly state a CFA claim” because the promotional messages sent to Antar had no “capacity to mislead” him. The court pointed out that Antar knew exactly what the incentives like bonuses, credits, and deposit matches, were for. They were designed to encourage him to keep gambling.
Antar placed more than 100,000 online bets and wagered over $24 million between June 2019 and January 2020. He argued that his VIP hosts should have recognized his gambling problem because they were trained to spot the signs.
But the court didn’t agree. It said casinos aren’t legally required to protect problem gamblers from their own behavior.
“Courts applying New Jersey law have consistently rejected imposing a duty of care on casinos towards compulsive gamblers,” the opinion stated, citing previous rulings that reached the same conclusion. The panel stressed that “recognizing that New Jersey does not impose a duty of care on casinos over problem gamblers, statutorily or through caselaw, the District Court properly dismissed Antar’s negligence claim.”
Antar’s claim that he suffered an “ascertainable loss” also failed to convince the court.
He claimed that his gambling led to clear financial losses that could be measured. But the court disagreed, saying those losses were no different from the usual risks of gambling.
“Each time Antar placed a bet through the defendants’ platforms… he received exactly what he thought he was purchasing—a gambling experience where winning was not guaranteed”.
Future legal hurdles for cases against casino operators
In a key part of its decision, the court pointed to a previous case, Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Assocs., where it stated, “under the prevailing rules and house odds, ‘the house will win and the gamblers will lose’ anyway in the typical transaction,” rejecting the idea that the bonuses and promotions he received led to financial losses beyond what’s normally expected in casino gambling.
This ruling from the Third Circuit puts an end to Antar’s effort to hold casinos responsible for fueling his addiction. It also clarifies that others in similar situations will face serious legal hurdles if they try to do the same.
Featured image: Canva / BetMGM
