What happened?
In March 2021, Davis took part in BetMGM’s “Luck O’ The Roulette,” a promotional game that customers could play around St. Patrick’s Day. Court records suggest that Davis started with only $4.50 but bet her way up to $5,000 max-value spins.
After five days of playing the game, her account was filled with $3.3 million in winnings.
She requested a $100,000 withdrawal, which BetMGM honored and transferred. The company also sent her an email congratulating her on her wins.
One day later, she received an email that said her account had been suspended due to the volume of play. It also said that BetMGM believed her winnings were due to an internal error.
An attorney for BetMGM informed Davis’ representation, David Steingold, that the winnings were received due to a glitch. According to the legal affairs office form BetMGM Casino Operations, a malfunction began around play 28, and her account should have been at $0 at play 368.
BetMGM’s company policy is to put the customer who experienced the glitch “in the position they were in before the Error occurred,” meaning that the winnings were removed from Davis’ account.
The roulette game was removed from BetMGM’s offerings immediately thereafter.
Davis has the right to sue
The MGCB said that BetMGM failed to notify it of the supposed malfunction that occurred with the game, and that BetMGM did not fully cooperate with an investigation into the matter. Those infractions did not result in the MGCB levying disciplinary action against the operator.
The circuit court ruled that the MGCB had the authority over the courts to decide the matter. The Michigan Court of Appeals also reached the same verdict in a split decision.
However, the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Michigan’s Lawful Internet Gaming Act does not strip citizens of their right to seek legal action.
The case was sent back to the Wayne County Circuit Court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“The Legislature enacted the (Lawful Internet Gaming Act) to legalize online gambling. We would be remiss not to acknowledge that this shift in public policy may give rise to new rights under the law,” Justice Brian Zahra wrote. “Because our existing common-law rules may be 'adapted to current needs in light of changing times and circumstances,' the common law is particularly well-suited to address ongoing developments arising from the LIGA.”
Davis could still receive more than $3 million depending on the outcome.
