Justia Gaming Law Opinion Summaries

A patron at Encore Boston Harbor Casino challenged the casino's practice of redeeming slot-machine tickets. When patrons finish using a slot machine, they receive a TITO ticket, which can be redeemed for cash. The casino offers two redemption options: cashier cages, which provide full cash value, and self-serve kiosks (TRUs), which dispense only bills and issue a TRU ticket for any remaining cents. The TRU ticket can be redeemed at the cashier cage or used in another slot machine. The plaintiff argued that this practice was unfair and deceptive, violating Massachusetts regulations and consumer protection laws.The case was initially filed in Massachusetts state court and then removed to federal court. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim, ruling that an adequate legal remedy was available under Chapter 93A. The court later granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the remaining claims, including breach of contract, promissory estoppel, conversion, and unfair and deceptive business practices. The court found that the casino's practice did not violate its internal controls or Massachusetts regulations and that the plaintiff failed to show the practice was unfair or deceptive.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, agreeing that Chapter 93A provided an adequate legal remedy. The court also upheld the summary judgment on the remaining claims, concluding that the casino's practice of issuing TRU tickets for cents did not violate regulations or constitute unfair or deceptive practices. The court found no evidence that the practice was immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, and ruled that the plaintiff's common law claims also failed. View "Schuster v. Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of bettors who sued Churchill Downs, Inc., and trainers Robert Baffert and Bob Baffert Racing, Inc., after the horse they bet on, Medina Spirit, was disqualified from the 2021 Kentucky Derby due to a failed post-race drug test. The bettors claimed that they would have won their bets under the new order of finish after Medina Spirit's disqualification. However, under Kentucky law, only the first order of finish marked "official" counts for wagering purposes. The plaintiffs brought claims for negligence, breach of contract, violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, which granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were based on the theory that they had "unpaid winning wagers," but under Kentucky law, the first official order of finish is final. Therefore, the plaintiffs' wagers were lost, and the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.The case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the plaintiffs' claims were based on the theory that they had "unpaid winning wagers." However, under Kentucky law, the first official order of finish is final for wagering purposes. Therefore, the plaintiffs' wagers were lost, and the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court also found that the proposed amendment to the complaint did not cure this flaw, so the lower court properly denied leave to amend. View "Mattera v. Baffert" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually and purportedly on behalf of others similarly situated, filed suit against GameStop for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and violation of Minnesota’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), Minn. Stat. 325F.68, et seq. Plaintiff alleged that GameStop's disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) to a third party (Facebook) violated an express agreement not to do so. The district court granted GameStop's motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's lack of standing. The court concluded that plaintiff provided sufficient facts alleging that he is party to a binding contract with GameStop, and GameStop does not dispute this contractual relationship; GameStop has violated that policy; and plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of GameStop's breach. The court also concluded that plaintiff has standing to bring his breach-of-contract claim and to bring his other claims. The court concluded, however, that the privacy policy unambiguously does not include those pieces of information among the protected PII. Therefore, the protection plaintiff argues GameStop failed to provide was not among the protections for which he bargained by agreeing to the terms of service, and GameStop thus could not have breached its contract with plaintiff. Plaintiff's Minnesota CFA claims fail for similar reasons. Finally, plaintiff has not alleged a claim for unjust enrichment or the related claim of money had and received. View "Carlsen v. GameStop, Inc." on Justia Law