US Judge Rules Casinos Not Obligated to Refuse Bets from Addicts
Verdict in the USA: No obligation for casinos to turn away gambling addicts
In a recently litigated case in New Jersey, USA, a crucial question was asked: Are casinos obligated to prevent gambling addicts from betting? A federal judge concluded that there is no legal requirement for casinos to reject bets from problematic gamblers.
The Case: A gambling addict’s lawsuit against a casino
Following a lawsuit filed by a New Jersey resident against the Borgata Casino and its parent company MGM Resorts, the court discussed whether the casino had a duty to prevent the plaintiff, who was struggling with a gambling addiction, from betting activities. However, District Judge Madeline Cox ruled that New Jersey laws do not expressly prohibit casinos from accepting bets from individuals with compulsive gambling tendencies.
Lack of legal prohibition
Despite comprehensive regulations governing the gambling industry, Judge Cox emphasized the absence of specific provisions requiring casinos to stay away from gambling addicts. She stressed that while New Jersey laws extensively regulate the obligations of casinos regarding problematic gambling, they do not explicitly clarify whether casinos may actively encourage individuals with gambling addiction to gamble.
Past cases and current developments
The court’s decision referred to previous cases where gambling addicts and individuals under the influence of alcohol sued casinos to recover losses, but received no favourable judgments. Similar legal challenges have been dismissed in various states, signaling a unified stance on the issue across the country.
In a current case in Nevada, a high-stakes blackjack player is suing MGM for alleged drug administration with ketamine, demanding $75 million in damages.
Conclusion
This ruling could have far-reaching implications for the gambling industry and the way it deals with problematic gambling. It remains to be seen whether similar cases will be decided differently in the future or whether the current legal interpretation will stand.
You should read that too:
Advertising transparency