Plaintiffs entered the Bicycle Casino’s no-limit poker
tournament. It was originally advertised
to have three qualifying days for the final day of play, when the top 10% of
qualifiers would split the $200,000 guaranteed payout. But in the middle, after plaintiffs had
already qualified, the casino declared an extra start day. This increased the total pot but resulted in
a lower payout for each person in the top 10%.
Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, fraud and unfair business
practices. The trial court held that
this was a claim arising out of a gambling contract, precluding judicial
resolution of any dispute as a matter of state public policy, and the court of
appeals affirmed. The public policy bars
judicial resolution of civil claims arising out of lawful or unlawful gambling contracts or transactions—you’re in the
state of nature when you’re in the casino because gambling is immoral. Plaintiffs’ basic argument was that poker was
a game of skill, not chance, and pointed to statements that the defendant had
made—including in litigation—in support of this. However, the legislature had already
classified poker as gambling, so that’s that.
Plaintiffs also argued that this was a case about false
advertising and breach of contract, not the collection of gambling debts. The court disagreed. “The complaint seeks damages based on the
theory that plaintiffs would have won more money if defendant did not offer an
additional qualification round, which increased the number of people competing
for and sharing in the same guaranteed payout.”
That made it an action for gambling losses. Plaintiffs’ remedy was to complain to the AG
and municipal authorities.
1 comment:
thanks -- that one is really interesting
Post a Comment