$3 Million BetMGM Roulette Glitch Case Hits Michigan Supreme Court

• Jacqueline Davis claims she won $3 million during a roulette session at BetMGM in 2021
• BetMGM refused to pay, citing a software glitch in the “Luck O’ Roulette” game
• Michigan Supreme Court reviewing whether LIGA bars Davis from suing

A legal spat over a $3 million online roulette “glitch” at BetMGM has developed into an argument about who has the power to resolve disputes between players and online casinos in the state.

In 2021, Jacqueline Davis, from Detroit, claims she played the “Luck O’ Roulette” fixed-odds game at BetMGM for five days straight and went on a streak, winning up to $11 million. By the end of her one-woman roulette-a-thon, she had dropped down to $3 million and figured it was time to quit while she was still a multimillionaire.

MGM later told Davis she could keep the $100K if she signed a confidentiality agreement to not talk about the glitch. If news of the glitch ever got out, Davis would have to return the money. She sued for fraud and breach of contract.

Glitch Not Disputed

Davis’ lawyer David Steingold said at the time that he didn’t dispute there was a glitch but claimed this wasn’t a valid defense on BetMGM’s part.

MGM is required to check its games every 24 hours as a condition of its licensing. Since his client had played for five days straight, the operator had ample opportunity to fix any technical issues, but didn’t, Steingold argued.

The court agreed, noting that such disputes require technical knowledge about the software and possible malfunctions that courts don’t possess.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court in a 2-1 opinion, determining that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case because Michigan’s Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA) gives the MGCB exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

Twist in the Case

The Michigan Supreme Court granted Davis leave to appeal in May 2024 and last week heard oral arguments as justices sought to determine whether LIGA trumped her right to sue.

A twist in the case came in the form of an amicus brief filed by the MGCB stating the agency doesn’t have the authority or resources to handle civil disputes like this. The board emphasized that it’s focused on regulating gambling, rather than deciding who’s right or wrong in private arguments.

What do you make of the fact that the MGCB itself says, ‘We don’t have jurisdiction’? The very entity that you say is the keeper of all of this. Are we supposed to assume that they have an incorrect understanding of their jurisdiction?” Chief Justice-Elect Megan Cavanagh asked.

Norman Ankers, representing BetMGM, asserted the board’s interpretation of its own powers should have no bearing on the letter of the law.

The case continues.