MGM duty of care gambling – MGM Not Liable: Court Rules No Duty of Care in Gambling Case

• Court confirms MGM Resorts is not legally obligated to prevent compulsive gambling
• Plaintiff Sam Antar lost close to $25 million on MGM platforms
• Lawsuit claimed MGM violated the Consumer Fraud Act by inducing gambling despite known addiction

---

MGM duty of care gambling at Lotus Asia. A federal appeals court has ruled that MGM Resorts, like other casino operators, does not hold a legal duty of care to intervene or protect

Sam A. Antar initiated legal action against MGM in September 2022 to recover the nearly $25 million he squandered by placing over 100,000 online bets across its platforms, including BetMGM and Borgata Online, within a timeframe from May 2019 to January 2020. Notably, he lost over $5 million within just 16 days in January 2020 alone.

Antar accused MGM of violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), negligence, and unjust enrichment by continuously supplying him with gambling bonuses, knowingly fuelling his addiction.

Antar’s Prior Fraud Conviction

In 2022, Antar was sentenced to three years in prison after admitting to fraud charges, which involved embezzling approximately $650,000 meant for pre-IPO investments. He was released after serving his sentence.

As of February 2024, a lower court further stated that New Jersey’s Casino Control Act superseded the CFA, clarifying that casinos are not obligated to halt gambling inducements for individuals demonstrating problematic gambling tendencies.

The presiding judge declared that the casino had no common law duty of care toward Antar.

On Monday, a panel from the Third Circuit concurred, highlighting a consistent judicial perspective across New Jersey and the broader US that negates any duty of care imposed on casinos concerning problem gamblers.

The panel further noted that Antar did not sufficiently demonstrate illegal actions by MGM and dismissed allegations of MGM misrepresenting the inducements through VIP bonuses. It was concluded that Antar was fully conscious that the communications from his VIP hosts were intended as incentives to encourage continued gambling.

Background on ‘Crazy Eddie’

Sam Antar is linked to the notorious electronics titan ‘Crazy’ Eddie Antar, who led the once-renowned Crazy Eddie electronics empire. Following a scandal where the company was found to have purposefully inflated profits and committed extensive securities fraud, Eddie was arrested in 1992 and served eight years in prison.

Once a major player in the consumer electronics sector, Crazy Eddie faced catastrophic fall from grace after being exposed for fraudulent practices shortly after going public in 1984.

In conclusion, this ruling serves as a reminder that the responsibility of individual gamblers remains paramount in the eyes of the law, highlighting the limited legal obligations of casinos toward compulsive gambling behaviours.

Additional Facts:

• The ruling underscores a trend where courts uphold individual accountability in gambling-related disputes.
• Between 2019 and 2020, online gambling surged, significantly impacting many gamblers’ financial situations.
• Sam Antar’s case illustrates the complexities involved when legal frameworks intersect with gambling addiction issues.

In summary, the court ruling reaffirms that while casinos have certain ethical responsibilities, they are not legally obligated to intervene in a gambler’s choices once they are aware of the risks involved. This ongoing debate around the responsibilities of casino operators and the legal duties they must uphold continues to evolve as gambling laws adapt to changing societal norms.