Lawyers dealing with a lawsuit for a New York man who lost close to $30 million at MGM Resorts International gambling venues have picked a new angle of attack.
Sam A. Antar is the nephew of convicted fraudster and Crazy Eddie electronics store founder Eddie Antar. He is also himself a convicted fraudster who stole $800,000 from his clients to fund his gambling addiction. For that action, he received a three-year prison sentence in 2022.
But he is currently also suing MGM for $30 million in damages, claiming they encouraged his gambling spree. In 2019, Antar gambled nearly $30 million at the Borgata casino in New Jersey and the online casino BetMGM.
Antar’s lawsuit claims MGM’s encouragement of his gambling is a crime under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, or CFA. It says the Las Vegas-based gambling operator sent him thousands of personal phone calls and text messages from VIP hosts, as well as standard promotional materials.
A District Court judge dismissed the case in January 2024, but Antar appealed to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
In MGM’s first response to this appeal, its lawyers took an unusual line of argument. And on Thursday of this week, Antar’s lawyers attempted to pick it apart.
Unconscionable Practices
Antar’s lawsuit claims that he is protected under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, section 56:8-2. It says that unconscionable practices in advertising are an unlawful practice.
The Consumer Fraud Act has largely been superseded by the Casino Control Act when it comes to gambling in New Jersey. However, where a consumer-to-business conflict is not represented in a specific act, the usual practice is to apply the CFA.
Meanwhile, MGM says the New Jersey Casino Control Act only requires that gamblers be informed of the dangers of problem gambling alongside offering responsible gambling tools. But it does not require a duty of care to stop them returning if they fail to use the tools provided.
This line of reasoning was what the District Court Judge Madeline Cox Arleo agreed with in initially dismissing the case.
Notably, Cox said the CCA was “silent” on the issue of casinos encouraging problem gambling customers, and therefore no applicable statutes had been broken and the case should be dismissed.
Duty of Care
However, in MGM’s filing to dismiss Antar’s appeal, its lawyers argued that the CCA did, in fact, speak on this issue.
“Plaintiff is wrong. The Casino Control Act is not “silent” on gaming operators’ responsibilities to problem gamblers…” MGM’s filing said.
“Second, there is no basis to impose a novel duty of care for gaming operators to bear financial liability to patrons for alleged problem gambling losses.”
Antar’s lawyer jumped on the inconsistency. The counter filing alleges that MGM has misunderstood and mischaracterized the original lawsuit.
“Appellees seek affirmation of the District Court’s Letter Order based on a conflicting theory — that the CFA is preempted not because of its silence, but because the CCA purportedly addresses the issue of problem gambling. Not only was this argument wholly absent from the District Court’s Letter Order, but it is completely incompatible with the District Court’s understanding of this case’s factual underpinnings.”
Affirmative or Omission
Antar’s lawyers say that their case rests on MGM negligently encouraging a known problem gambler, rather than simply allowing him.
“Nowhere in his Complaint or in this appeal does Appellant claim Appellees are liable for passively allowing him to gamble, or that Appellees are liable for not ‘rescuing him from himself’,” the plaintiff’s counter filing states.
“Rather, the Appellees are liable because they actively enticed a known addicted gambler with relentless, near-daily, personal and realtime text message inducements from a casino host.”
The Complaint seeks a reconciliation of and recovery for the Appellees’ affirmative acts, not omissions.”
The appeals court judge will determine whether to play out the appeal in its own courtroom, affirm the lower court’s dismissal, or return the case to them for a second consideration.
The decision could set precedent for future cases involving problem gamblers in New Jersey, which has a large casino and sports betting sector.
David is an online casino expert who specializes in online slots and boasts over 10 years experience writing about iGaming. He has written for a wide range of notable publications, including eSports Insider and WordPlay Magazine.
David graduated Derby University with a BA Degree in English Literature and Creative Writing.
