Gambling Addict Makes High-Stakes Appeal to Third Circuit

A New Jersey man is seeking to revive his lawsuit against MGM Resorts and its subsidiaries, alleging that the casinos exploited his gambling addiction by persistently offering financial incentives and gifts to encourage his gambling activities. The case, which was previously dismissed, is now being considered by a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, raising questions about the responsibilities of casinos. Let’s dive in.

Problem Gambler Sam Antar

Sam A. Antar, who calls himself a “problem gambler,” brought the lawsuit. He sued a group of corporations in the gambling industry, both online and land-based gaming platforms, as well as some unnamed individual defendants. The corporate defendants are part of a network of companies that operate and manage gambling services, including MGM. We’ll refer to the defendants collectively as “the casinos,” keeping in mind that they’re more than just that.

Antar claims he engaged in extensive gambling activities with the casinos from 2019 to 2020, during which he was designated as a VIP "NOIR" member, the highest rewards status offered by those casinos. This status allowed the defendants to meticulously track his gambling patterns and behavior using analytic tools and player tracking data, aiming to maximize profitability.

Throughout this period, Antar claims that the casinos engaged with him almost daily via email, telephone, and text messages. They exchanged over 1,800 text messages with him, frequently offering financial incentives, bonuses, and gifts to entice him to continue gambling. These communications often occurred daily, starting early in the morning and continuing throughout the day, and were primarily focused on offering financial incentives designed to entice Antar to gamble.

The casinos provided a variety of bonuses, deposit matches, and gifts, such as free hotel rooms and event tickets, to maintain Antar’s gambling activity. For instance, on multiple occasions, Antar was informed of bonuses ranging from $300 to $5,000, deposit matches, and other financial credits aimed at offsetting his gambling losses. The casinos also applied pressure by expressing dissatisfaction with Antar’s deposit amounts and urging him to increase his deposits, as seen in messages like "Hey Sammy I need you to deposit more."

The complaint alleges that the casino’s actions, including “relentless” enticements and manipulation, significantly exacerbated Antar’s gambling addiction. This, he claims, led him to gamble nearly thirty million dollars in 2019 alone, with over 100,000 bets placed, ultimately causing severe emotional and financial harm.

Breaking the Law

The complaint alleges that these actions were not only unethical but also violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by constituting an unconscionable commercial practice.

Antar claims that, according to New Jersey regulations, casinos are required to implement training for employees who have direct contact with patrons to recognize the symptoms of problem gambling and provide assistance in obtaining help. In the case of the casinos involved in the lawsuit, this training was mandated to occur at the start of employment and at regular intervals thereafter. This is to ensure, at least in theory, that employees are equipped to identify and respond to signs of gambling addiction.

The complaint highlights that Quinton Hogan and Jerry Liang, who served as VIP Account Managers for the casinos, were trained under these regulations. They were responsible for maintaining relationships with high-value customers like Antar. They were also expected to recognize fundamental symptoms of problem gambling, such as excessive gambling amounts, frequency, and behaviors like "chasing" losses. Despite this training, Antar claims that both Hogan and Liang and their casinos knowingly exploited his gambling disorder by continuing to encourage his gambling activities rather than intervening or providing assistance.

Legal Theories

Antar accuses the casinos of violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by engaging in unconscionable commercial practices. Namely, that they acted in an unfair and unethical manner by continuously enticing him to gamble, despite knowing that he was a compulsive gambler and exhibited symptoms of problem gambling. Antar also claims negligence. He argues the casinos failed in their responsibility to act with reasonable care toward him—specifically, they had a duty to protect the Plaintiff from harm, knowing he was a compulsive gambler.

Antar is seeking not just compensatory damages (which are intended to compensate him for the actual losses suffered due to the casino’s actions, including financial losses and emotional distress), but treble damages (three times that amount) as afforded by the state’s Consumer Fraud Act. He’s also asking for punitive damages and the usual attorney’s fees and interest.

Chips Were Down at District Court

Antar’s suit was initially dismissed for several reasons. One of the primary reasons was the argument related to the applicability of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. A federal judge had determined that the New Jersey Casino Control Act preempted Antar's claims. Put simply, the judge found the Casino Control Act to have precedence over the Consumer Fraud Act in this context, invalidating Antar's claims under the latter.

MGM's attorney had also argued that Antar's own description of his gambling addiction suggested he would have gambled away his money regardless of the casinos' incentives. This characterization of his addiction undermined the causal link necessary to support claims of misleading or deceptive business practices under the Consumer Fraud Act. McGill argued that Antar did not claim any deception, which is a critical component of any Consumer Fraud Act claim.

Additionally, the court likely considered the complexities involved in determining how much of Antar's losses were directly attributable to the casinos' actions versus his own compulsive gambling behavior. U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas raised the question of whether it was even possible to calculate a remedy, given Antar's status as a gambling addict who might have incurred those losses regardless of the casinos' actions.

Antar Rolls the Dice Again

These factors combined to form the basis for the initial dismissal of Antar's claims, as the court found insufficient grounds to proceed under the legal frameworks and arguments presented.

Antar’s attorney recently looked to the Third Circuit to revive the dismissed lawsuit. His appeal focused on whether the casinos had a duty to stop incentivizing Antar to gamble, especially after a subpoena served to them by the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice on August 15, 2019. This subpoena was related to suspicions of illegal activity on their site and was argued by Antar's attorney to be a critical point that should have alerted the casinos to flag Antar as a problem gambler and cease providing him with gambling incentives.

The judges did not indicate when or how they would rule on the appeal, leaving the outcome pending.

Related Resources:

• 2024 Guide to Gaming Law Lawyers (FindLaw's Directory)
• Is It Legal To Gamble With Other People's Money? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
• What Is Gaming Law? (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)