Jackpot Justice: Detroit Woman Beats Odds in $3M Lawsuit

Jackpot Justice || Image: ImageFX

Michigan Supreme Court Confirms Gamblers Can Sue Casinos Over Disputed Winnings

In a landmark decision with significant implications for Michigan’s multi-billion-dollar gambling industry, the Michigan Supreme Court has clarified that patrons have the right to sue casinos in court over disputed winnings. The ruling in Davis v. BetMGM, LLC confirms that the state’s gaming regulator is not the exclusive venue for these conflicts, empowering individuals who believe they have been wrongfully denied their jackpots.

Here, we break down the Court's reasoning, and what this decision means for anyone who gambles on an online platform or in-person in Michigan.

The Jackpot — A Multi-Million Dollar Win and a Glitch

In March 2021, Jacqueline Davis was playing an online roulette game on the BetMGM platform. Over a remarkable six-day streak, her account balance grew to nearly $3.3 million. She successfully requested and received a withdrawal of $100,000.

Shortly thereafter, her celebratory moment came to an abrupt halt. BetMGM suspended her account and refused to pay the remaining ~$3.2 million. The company's reason was that an "error in the underlying game play" had caused a malfunction, improperly crediting her account with winnings she had not legitimately won.

In response, Ms. Davis filed a lawsuit in the Wayne Circuit Court, bringing claims for fraud, conversion, and breach of contract. BetMGM moved to have the case thrown out, arguing that her only option was to file a complaint with the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB), the state agency that regulates casinos. The trial court and the subsequent Court of Appeals agreed with BetMGM, effectively closing the courthouse doors to Ms. Davis. The case then ascended to the Michigan Supreme Court.

The Issue — A Player's Rights vs. a Casino's Regulator

The central question before the Michigan Supreme Court was straightforward:

Does the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA)—the statute governing online gambling—give the Michigan Gaming Control Board exclusive authority over player disputes, thereby stripping players of their right to sue a casino in court?

The Rule of Law — The Court Clarifies Abrogation and Inconsistency

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower courts, ruling in favor of Jacqueline Davis. The Court’s decision rested on two foundational legal principles:

1. Common-Law Rights Are Not Easily Erased: The Court first clarified that the correct legal term is "abrogation," not "preemption." For the Legislature to eliminate a citizen's long-standing common-law right to sue for things like breach of contract or fraud, it must do so with clear and unmistakable language in the statute.

2. Parallel Paths of Justice: The Court examined whether a private lawsuit was "inconsistent" with the MGCB's regulatory power. A system is only inconsistent if the two processes cannot logically coexist.

Why Gamblers Retain Their Right to Sue

The Supreme Court's analysis was direct and powerful.

• First, the Court found no evidence that the Legislature intended for LIGA to abrogate a person's right to sue. While LIGA legalized the activity of online gambling, it did not create a special shield protecting casinos from the normal legal claims that apply to any other business transaction. The Court reasoned that if the Legislature had wanted to make the MGCB the sole forum for all disputes, it would have explicitly said so. It did not.

• Second, the Court determined that a private lawsuit is not inconsistent with the MGCB's mission. The MGCB's purpose is to regulate, license, and enforce rules against operators to ensure the integrity of gaming for the public. The MGCB itself informed the parties in this very case that its investigations are "not intended to make a determination on the merits of any outstanding dispute" and that it has "no authority to award any money or other relief directly" to a player.

In essence, the MGCB polices the industry, while the courts provide a venue for resolving individual disputes. These two functions are distinct and complementary, not conflicting.

The Courthouse Doors Are Open

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions and sent Jacqueline Davis's case back to the Wayne Circuit Court to proceed.

The ultimate takeaway is clear: online and land-based casinos are not immune from lawsuits. When a patron has a dispute over winnings, a breach of contract, or other wrongdoing, they retain their fundamental right to seek justice in a court of law.

Victory for Michigan Gamblers: Setting a Precedent for Player Rights

This ruling is a significant victory for . For anyone participating in gaming in Michigan, here are the key insights:

• You Have a Right to Your Day in Court: If you find yourself in a monetary dispute with a casino, you are not limited to the gaming board's complaint process. You can hire an attorney and file a lawsuit to recover what you are owed.

• The MGCB is a Regulator, Not a Judge: While you should still file a complaint with the MGCB—as it can take disciplinary action against a casino for rule violations—understand that its role is not to resolve your personal financial claim.

• Documentation is Crucial: If you believe a casino has acted improperly, document everything. Take screenshots of winnings, save all email and chat communications with customer service, and keep detailed records of your transactions.

• Exceptions to Terms and Conditions: While casinos' terms and conditions are important, this ruling confirms they cannot be used to strip you of your basic right to access the legal system for claims of fraud, conversion, or breach of contract.