Operators have no duty to stop Problem Gamblers from betting?
Author:
Zach Lutz
Reviewed by:
Published:
Nov 27, 2024
,
11:23 a.m.
ET
The legal and moral obligations of casinos to intervene when problem gambling becomes apparent have long been a contentious issue. The upcoming Dec. 10 hearing in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals could reshape the conversation. At the heart of this legal battle is Sam Antar, a self-identified compulsive gambler, and BetMGM, one of the nation's leading casino operators.
Antar accuses BetMGM of exploiting his gambling addiction by encouraging him to wager tens of millions of dollars over a brief period. His case, dismissed earlier this year by a U.S. District Court judge, has now reached the appellate level, reigniting questions about the responsibilities of casinos and sportsbooks to prevent gambling addicts from betting in the digital age.
Background of Sam Antar vs MGM case
Sam Antar, heir to the "Crazy Eddie" electronics fortune, alleges that BetMGM knowingly encouraged his gambling addiction through targeted marketing tactics, including five-figure casino bonuses. According to court filings, Antar risked nearly $30 million over nine months in 2019 and 2020. He claims these behaviors were exacerbated by BetMGM's analytics-driven marketing, which preyed on his compulsive tendencies.
Antar argues that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act should protect individuals like him from "unconscionable" practices. However, U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo dismissed his case in January, citing the superiority of the Casino Control Act, which governs gambling operations in New Jersey. Judge Arleo's decision emphasized that current state laws impose no legal duty on casinos to prevent compulsive gamblers from betting.
Antar’s attorney, Matthew Litt, contends that the Casino Control Act, written for a pre-digital era, is outdated. He argues that online casinos now wield advanced technologies capable of identifying and targeting problem gamblers, necessitating regulatory updates.
Precedents set in previous gambling cases
The dismissal of Antar’s lawsuit aligns with precedents set in New Jersey and other states. In 2008, U.S. District Judge Renée Bumb ruled against Arelia Taveras, a compulsive gambler who sued Atlantic City casinos, claiming they had a duty to stop her from losing nearly $1 million over two years.
Similar cases in Indiana and abroad in Sweden have echoed these rulings, asserting that casinos are not legally obligated to shield individuals from their own compulsive gambling behaviors.
Courts generally agree that gambling is a consensual activity. Patrons engage in wagering with full knowledge of the risks, and casinos profit from the entertainment they provide. Legal arguments hinge on whether casinos cross a line by exploiting vulnerable individuals, but so far courts have largely sided with the industry.
Should gambling companies be required to stop gambling addicts from betting?
The ethical question of whether casinos should bear responsibility for compulsive gambling remains divisive. On one side, critics argue that modern casinos and sportsbooks use advanced data analytics to identify high-value gamblers, including those exhibiting problematic behaviors. By incentivizing such individuals with tailored bonuses and promotions, these operators may be enabling addiction for profit.
On the other hand, defenders of the industry contend that personal responsibility is paramount. They point to self-exclusion programs, which allow individuals to voluntarily ban themselves from gambling establishments. Casinos are required to honor these lists and have faced penalties for failing to do so. However, critics argue that self-exclusion programs are underutilized and insufficient to address the broader issue of problem gambling.
Even if not required, what do sportsbooks and casinos do to combat problem gamblers from betting?
Despite the lack of legal obligation, many gambling operators have implemented responsible gaming initiatives. These include:
Self-Exclusion Programs: Players can voluntarily ban themselves from gambling, either temporarily or permanently.
Deposit, Time, Wager Size and Loss Limits: Platforms allow users to set limits on how much money or time they spend gambling.
Helpline Partnerships: Many casinos prominently display information about gambling addiction support resources, such as Birches Health or the 1-800-GAMBLER helpline.
Behavioral Analytics: Some operators claim to use data analytics not just to target marketing but also to identify problem gambling behaviors and intervene appropriately.
While these measures demonstrate a commitment to responsible gambling, there is an argument that these are insufficient, particularly when juxtaposed with aggressive marketing campaigns that may be targeting vulnerable individuals.
Gambling addiction treatment from home
For individuals struggling with gambling addiction, effective treatment often requires a comprehensive approach that addresses both behavioral and psychological factors. Birches Health offers compassionate, personalized care to help individuals regain control and find lasting recovery.
Through remote therapy sessions, self-assessments and tailored treatment plans, Birches Health empowers individuals to overcome addiction from the comfort of home. Birches provides the tools and support needed to address the root causes of compulsive gambling.
Take the first step toward recovery:
For more information, call us at 833-483-3838 or email hello@bircheshealth.com. Birches Health provides compassionate support to help you regain control and find lasting recovery.
Sources:
Casino Reports
