A legal dispute regarding a $3 million online roulette “glitch” at BetMGM has turned into a debate over who holds the authority to settle conflicts between players and online casinos in the state. 

In 2021, Jacqueline Davis, hailing from Detroit, asserts she engaged in the “Luck O’ Roulette” fixed-odds game at BetMGM for five consecutive days and experienced a winning streak, earning as much as $11 million. At the conclusion of her solo roulette marathon, she had reduced her total to $3 million and decided it was best to stop while she was still a multimillionaire. 

BetMGM declined to make the payment. Davis stated that she visited the MGM Grand in Detroit to obtain a $100K advance on her winnings, which she received in cash. However, when she came back the following day for the remainder, she was informed that the game had failed and she wouldn't receive any additional money. 

MGM subsequently informed Davis that she could retain the $100K if she agreed to a confidentiality contract forbidding her from discussing the error. Should word of the malfunction be revealed, Davis would be required to repay the funds. She filed a lawsuit for fraud and violation of contract. 

Malfunction Undisputed 

Davis’ attorney David Steingold asserted then that he acknowledged a malfunction, yet argued that this was not a legitimate defense for BetMGM. 

MGM must inspect its games on a daily basis every 24 hours to comply with its licensing requirements. Steingold contended that the operator had plenty of chances to address any technical problems, since his client had played continuously for five days. 

In the circuit court, BetMGM claimed that Davis lacked the authority to sue because state law grants the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) sole authority to resolve internet gambling matters. 

The court concurred, emphasizing that these conflicts necessitate specialized understanding of the software and potential issues which the courts lack. 

The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court's decision in a 2-1 ruling, concluding that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction since Michigan’s Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA) provides the MGCB with exclusive jurisdiction over the issue. 

Turn in the Situation 

In May 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court allowed Davis to appeal and last week conducted oral arguments while justices aimed to decide if LIGA superseded her right to file a lawsuit. 

A development in the case emerged with an amicus brief submitted by the MGCB asserting that the agency lacks both the authority and the resources to manage civil disputes of this nature. The board stressed that its priority is regulating gambling instead of determining who is correct or incorrect in personal disputes.

"What do you make of the fact that the MGCB itself says, ‘We don’t have jurisdiction’? The very entity that you say is the keeper of all of this. Are we supposed to assume that they have an incorrect understanding of their jurisdiction?” Chief Justice-Elect Megan Cavanagh asked.

Norman Ankers, speaking for BetMGM, claimed that the board’s understanding of its powers must not influence the legal text. 

The situation persists.