Appeals Court Rules MGM Not Liable for Gambler's Losses

In a significant legal ruling, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s decision, dismissing a lawsuit filed by Sam A. Antar, a self-described compulsive gambler, who sought to hold MGM Resorts responsible for his staggering $24 million in losses. Antar’s case claimed that the casino operator had actively encouraged his gambling addiction through targeted promotions and constant engagement from personal VIP hosts.

Background of the Lawsuit

In 2022, Antar filed a lawsuit against MGM Resorts and its online gaming platforms, BetMGM and Borgata Online, arguing that his gambling losses were the result of MGM’s negligent actions and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). Antar contended that after becoming a member of MGM’s high-tier VIP program, he received extensive promotional offers from two designated VIP hosts who allegedly used manipulative tactics to keep him gambling despite his known addiction. His legal team claimed that between June 2019 and January 2020, these hosts sent over 1,800 texts, offering bonuses, rewards, and other enticements that led to his eventual financial ruin.

The Court’s Ruling

The Third Circuit , consisting of Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Roth and Judges Stephanos Bibas and Cindy K. Chung, disagreed with Antar’s claims, affirming the district court’s ruling that casinos are not legally required to protect problem gamblers from their own addiction under New Jersey law. As Judge Roth explained, there was no precedent or legal obligation for casinos to intervene in cases involving compulsive gambling, stating that “New Jersey does not impose a duty of care on casinos over problem gamblers, statutorily or through case law.”

The further emphasized that Antar had failed to demonstrate that MGM’s actions were either fraudulent or misleading, which are essential elements for a claim under the CFA. Despite Antar’s assertions, the court found that the communication from MGM’s VIP hosts was transparent and aligned with standard promotional practices—offering bonuses, credits, and incentives for continued gambling. In Roth’s opinion, Antar “was fully aware that the text messages from his VIP hosts offering bonuses, credits, and deposit matches were exactly as the hosts represented—enticements to continue to gamble.”

Compulsive Gambling and Legal Expectations

The court’s opinion is rooted in the distinction between consumer protection laws and the regulatory framework governing casinos. While the CFA is designed to prevent deceptive practices, the Third Circuit found that Antar could not prove that the casino’s promotional tactics were misleading or deceptive. Furthermore, the judges ruled that Antar’s argument about his gambling losses being directly caused by the VIP incentives failed to meet the legal threshold of proving an “ascertainable loss” under the CFA. The noted that gambling losses, by their nature, are often impossible to separate from the expected outcomes of casino games, where odds are stacked against the player.

The court also rejected Antar’s more creative argument that the gambling services provided by MGM were “worthless” to him due to his addiction. While acknowledging this perspective, Judge Roth explained that Antar had received exactly what he had paid for—an opportunity to gamble, where the outcome of winning was never guaranteed.

The Broader Implications

This ruling is part of a broader trend in which courts have been reluctant to impose responsibility on casinos for the actions of problem gamblers. The decision mirrors earlier rulings that have protected casinos from lawsuits brought by individuals who claim they were exploited due to their addiction. BetMGM’s legal victory in this case is seen as a win for the broader gambling industry, which has faced increasing scrutiny over its marketing tactics and responsibility toward problem gamblers.

Antar, who is currently serving a three-year sentence for financial fraud, had also been accused by BetMGM of attempting to use the lawsuit as a way to recover funds for restitution payments related to his previous criminal activities. The company suggested that Antar’s lawsuit was part of a larger strategy to fund a “Ponzi scheme” repayment plan.

Legal Precedents and Future Cases

The Third Circuit ruling in this case has significant implications for other ongoing lawsuits involving online gambling platforms. Similar legal challenges are being pursued in other states, with plaintiffs arguing that casinos and sportsbooks should be held able for the harm caused to addicted gamblers. However, as this case illustrates, courts have generally sided with the gaming industry, citing the protection provided by local gaming laws and the need to balance consumer rights with the viability of the casino industry.

As of now, neither Antar nor MGM Resorts has issued a public comment on the latest ruling. However, the decision is likely to be referenced in future cases involving claims of gambling addiction and casino liability.

Visit BetMGM.com for and Conditions. 21+ years of age or older to wager. MI, NJ, PA or WV only. Excludes Michigan Disassociated Persons. All promotions are subject to qualification and eligibility requirements. Rewards issued as non-withdrawable site credit, unless otherwise provided in the applicable . Please Gamble Responsibly. Gambling Problem? 1-800-270-7117 for confidential help (MI), 1-800-GAMBLER (NJ, PA & WV).

Source:

Appeals Court Rules MGM Not Liable for Compulsive Gambler’s Losses, news.worldcasinodirectory.com, April 29, 2025.