- Class Action Lawsuits Against Casinos
- How To File Lawsuit Against Online Casino
- Indian Casino Lawsuits
- Casino Lawsuits Payout
Lucky Red Casino is rated 2.4 out of 5 and is a BLACKLISTED online casino, read our review to understand why. Lucky Red Casino offers a 400% Sign Up bonus with a max bonus of $4000, (the bonus code is LUCKYRED400). Culinary and bar workers in Las Vegas filed a lawsuit against a number of hotel-casinos due to unsafe working conditions amid the pandemic. Image: Shutterstock.com Employees take action. Casino Worker Overtime Lawsuits. Attorneys are looking into whether some casinos are breaking federal law by not paying overtime wages to their employees. A number of class action lawsuits have already been filed to help workers collect their unpaid wages. You may be able to file a lawsuit against the company that ran the report or the.
Legalized online gambling, once just a pipe dream, is now a reality in the United States. Just this month, the state of Nevada gave the go-ahead to the country's first legal online gambling website, Ultimate Poker. Other states are expected to follow suit by approving the operation of online casinos that are affiliated with land-based casinos.
While some Americans are thrilled by the prospect of legal online gambling in their own backyard, others disapprove of the new policy. A group of lawyers calling themselves a “gambling litigation study group” put their heads together in April 2013 to determine whether a lawsuit against online gambling sites would be a viable option for recouping some of the money they believe online casinos will cause Americans to lose.
Litigation Study Group Considers Strategy Similar to Tobacco Class Action Suit
The scenario in which lawyers sue online casinos would be similar to that of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of 1998, in which cigarette company giants were sued by 46 attorneys general for putting public health at risk via their product.
Ten Out of Twenty Invited Experts Attend Indianapolis Meeting
Twenty high-profile lawyers were invited to attend the gambling litigation study group meeting in Indianapolis; only ten actually attended. Anti-gambling attorney Michael Fagan helped coordinate the meeting. Fagan is no stranger to this type of prosecution; he has a history of going after over 25 offshore sports betting operations. The litigation group is also under the guidance of Scott Harshbarger, a Massachusetts attorney with experience fighting against the tobacco industry. Together, these two leaders hope to find a way to prosecute U.S.-based cyber casinos for the bad influence they have on Americans.
The Case Against Online Gambling
Critics of online gambling say the pastime is deceptively glamorous, luring young people and other weak-minded souls who are easily swayed by peer pressure and temptation. They liken addictive gambling to addictive smoking, in which a heartless corporation preys upon victims who are defenseless and vulnerable.
Although they recognize that individuals do have a choice in whether they gamble or not, they believe the institution of gambling is more powerful than the individual, that it unfairly cons people into spending money on things that just aren't good for them. These critics cite a $7 billion dollar yearly cost to the United States' health and criminal justice systems due to the existence of gambling in America.
Stoltz vs. OLG: A Similar Lawsuit in Canada
A lawsuit similar to the one proposed by the litigation study group is currently underway in Canada. Attorney Lori Stoltz, a Toronto health care lawyer, is leading a 10,000-gambler fight against OLG,Ontario Lottery and Gaming, claiming that the organization took unfair advantage of the individuals' weaknesses by allowing them to gamble. Stoltz predicts that similar suits will pop up in other areas of North America as legalized online gambling becomes more common.
The Critics Don't Have a Case, According to Washington Lawyer
David Stewart, a Washington lawyer and American Gaming Association supporter, argues that the lawyers comprising the gambling litigation study group do not have a viable case. He refers to gambling as a “product,” indicating that American citizens have the right to partake of that product as much or as little as they please. The social and financial costs of addictive betting cannot be determined, according to gaming supporters, because this is an addiction that often concurs with other addictions and personality disorders.
Ultimate Poker administrator Tobin Prior defends his business, saying the locus of control rests with the gambler, not the government. Furthermore, he says his company does employ certain “safeguards” that enable customers to limit themselves if they wish. He is also quick to point out that people don't have to gamble if they don't want to.
More Online Gambling Opportunities in America
Americans have been gambling online for a years through offshore venues, but only recently did it become legal for gambling websites to operate in the United States. Nevada's Ultimate Poker is the first, but certainly not the last, online gaming site in the country. Delaware and New Jersey have also legalized online gambling; it is only a matter of time before these states establish cyber casinos to accompany their brick-and-mortar casinos. Massachusetts, California, Illinois, and Mississippi are reported to be well on their way to passing laws allowing them to acquire gambling websites as well.
Stumbling Block: Gamblers Are Not a Part of One 'Class'
Although it may seem like the critics have a leg to stand on in their prosecution, previous legislation could make it hard for them to establish a class action suit. In 2004, federal legislation ruled that gamblers cannot be lumped together as one 'class' of people, as everybody gambles for their own unique personal reasons. If prosecutors decide to attack online casino sites, they will have a long road ahead of them. Before filing a class action suit, they must have a legitimate class to work with. The 2004 ruling could make this difficult.
A Question of Control
The underlying question behind this issue is one of control. Anti-gaming lawyers believe the government has a responsibility protect online gamblers from harming themselves. They cite problem gambling statistics, viewing the addiction as a disease that is out of peoples' control. Pro-gambling lawyers believe the government should keep their noses out of the issue, allowing citizens to gamble online as they please. They cite personal freedom and the belief that American citizens can make these types of decisions for themselves.
What Else Might Interest You:
Online Roulette - Some basics for beginnersCOMMENTS:
By loading and joining the Disqus comments service below, you agree to their privacy policy.
Class Action Lawsuits Against Casinos
People from Washington State are continuing their attacks on social gaming sites as this past week a woman named Elise Bell filed suit against Game Show Network (GSN) accusing it of running an illegal online gambling site. GSN displays both new game shows that are being tried out on the public at similar sites and also runs classic game shows from past decades. The site also runs some free games which run on free tokens which GSN offers regularly. However, players have the option of acquiring more tokens by using the proper bonus codes and paying a very small fee to get them.
Ms. Bell alleges that she “lost” $700 playing the “free” games at GSN because she couldn’t wait to get free tokens so she bought $700 worth of tokens over time. The tokens have no intrinsic value in themselves and players can wait until more free tokens are offered and can play at zero personal cost indefinitely. Ms. Bell states in her suit that the offering of tokens for money constitutes illegal online gambling.
Something of Value
The lawsuit cites the term “something of value” from Washington State gambling law that makes it illegal to offer games in exchange for the amorphous something of value. No on denies that the $700 Bell spent playing games at GSN have real value. The problem that many observers have is that the lawsuit alleges that buying tokens is necessary to continue playing, an allegation that is manifestly incorrect.
No player is forced to buy tokens to play. The games always offer free tokens at regular intervals.
Libertarian Concerns
Some observers, primarily libertarians and conservatives, feel that the present state of affairs— in which palpably social gaming sites where there is no chance to win any money at all, are being targeted by frivolous lawsuits in which the litigants are likely to hope to reap windfall awards far exceeding their personal costs in playing—are the result of an activist judiciary that demonstrates the inherent danger in allowing any governmental body to regulate online gaming.
The slew of lawsuits that have been filed in the Seattle-Tacoma area recently seem to have been spurred on by a local Federal Appeals Court that, in March, ruled against Big Fish Games in a similar case. Now lawsuits seeking class action status have been filed against Playtika, Scientific Games, Huuuge Games, Double Down Interactive, and High 5 Games in addition to the suit against GSN.
Wording of Suit
The wording in the lawsuit is quite telling: “Defendant’s online gambling games are illegal gambling games because they are online games in which players wager things of value (the tokens) and by an element of chance (e.g. by spinning an online slot machine) are able to obtain additional entertainment and extend gameplay by winning additional tokens.”
Clearly, the lawsuit admits that the purpose of playing at GSN games is entertainment and not to win actual money which is demonstrably impossible.
Regulation of Online Gaming
There is real concern among some that governments are stepping upon personal liberties in cases like these. The judge in the case against Big Fish Games specifically referred to the “something of value” clause in arriving at his decision in favor of the plaintiff.
There seems to be a kind of circularity in the arguments against the social gaming sites. It’s true that a player needs tokens or chips to play. It’s true that if a player runs out of tokens, he or she can either buy more tokens or quit the game for the time being. The upshot of these lawsuits seems to be that these plaintiffs will be rewarded for buying tokens unnecessarily and then the sites will close because they can’t afford more lawsuits.
That would mean that the average player, one who understands that the sites serve entertainment purposes only, would no longer have access to such sites.
Business
How To File Lawsuit Against Online Casino
No one disputes that social gaming sites make money by selling tokens. However, no social gaming site gives the impression that a player can win money by buying tokens and continuing to play. The entire worldwide market niche for all these social gaming sites combined is a paltry $3.6 billion per year.
It has been said that if the sites were generating a lot more money and paying large sums to the states in taxes, the courts would be more flexible in their decisions regarding the “something of value” clause. It has cynically been stated that states want sports betting to generate the billions of dollars they need to keep running and the money spent on social gaming entertainment should be spent on sports betting which has just gotten the Federal imprimatur from the Supreme Court.
Psychology
There is a psychological side to the social gaming business. As they try to reproduce the atmosphere at a teal casino, some say they lure people into buying tokens just to keep the sense of gambling at a casino fresh.
As a class action suit, the plaintiffs can pool their “losses” and claim that unwitting players have “spent “ millions of dollars playing the games offered at no cost at these social gaming sites.
Indian Casino Lawsuits
The true psychological side of social gaming is that there are even gaming addicts who spend money they can’t afford buying things they don’t have to pay for. It would be like going to a resale shop and paying extra for an article of clothing even when the real price is clearly marked.
Casino Lawsuits Payout
The psychological question comes down to how much will a free society tolerate problem gambling even when no gambling has taken place?