The Michigan Supreme Court issued a decision Tuesday in *Davis v. BetMGM, LLC*, resolving a high-stakes dispute between an online gambler and one of the state's major casino operators over $3 million in contested winnings.
Jacqueline Davis filed suit in Wayne Circuit Court against BetMGM, LLC, asserting claims of fraud, conversion, and breach of contract after the company refused to honor her substantial gambling winnings. The case, argued before the state's highest court in April and decided July 22, highlights the complex legal issues surrounding online gambling disputes in Michigan's regulated market.
According to court records, Davis won more than $3 million over a six-day period in 2021 while playing on BetMGM's internet gambling platform. The substantial winnings accumulated rapidly during her gaming sessions on the company's online casino offerings.
Initially, the gambling operator appeared to acknowledge Davis's success. When she requested a withdrawal of $100,000 from her internet gambling account, BetMGM approved the transaction. The company sent Davis an email congratulating her on her winnings and offered to coordinate additional fund-withdrawal options for the remaining balance.
However, the situation changed dramatically shortly after Davis withdrew the initial $100,000. BetMGM sent another email informing her that her account had been suspended due to the "volume of play generated." The company then launched an investigation into Davis's play history and gaming activity.
Following its internal review, BetMGM reached a conclusion that would form the basis of the legal dispute. The company determined that Davis's winnings had been erroneously credited to her account because the game had malfunctioned during various plays. Based on this finding, BetMGM refused to remit the remaining winnings, effectively denying Davis access to roughly $2.9 million.
The denial of winnings prompted Davis to pursue legal remedies through multiple channels. She first filed the circuit court action against BetMGM, bringing claims that challenged the company's decision to withhold her winnings. Additionally, Davis filed a "patron dispute form" with the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB), the state regulatory agency that oversees gambling operations.
The case raises important questions about the obligations of online gambling operators when technical malfunctions occur. Gaming platforms typically include terms of service that address equipment failures and software glitches, but the application of these provisions in specific cases often becomes a matter of legal interpretation.
Davis's fraud claim likely centered on allegations that BetMGM misrepresented the validity of her winnings by initially congratulating her and processing a partial withdrawal before later claiming the games were malfunctioning. The conversion claim would address BetMGM's alleged wrongful retention of funds that rightfully belonged to Davis. The breach of contract claim would focus on whether BetMGM violated the terms of its user agreement with Davis.
From BetMGM's perspective, the company would argue that game malfunctions void any winnings generated during the affected plays, a standard provision in online gambling terms of service. The operator would contend that it acted appropriately by investigating suspicious activity and withholding funds that were credited in error.
The Michigan Supreme Court's involvement in this case reflects the significance of the legal issues at stake. Gaming disputes often involve substantial sums of money and can set precedents that affect the entire industry's operations within the state.
Michigan legalized online gambling in 2019, and the market began operating in early 2021. The regulatory framework includes oversight by the MGCB, which has authority to investigate patron disputes and ensure operators comply with state gaming laws.
The timing of this case is particularly notable, as it occurred during the early phases of Michigan's online gambling market. Davis's winnings occurred in 2021, soon after the legal online gambling platforms launched in the state. This timing suggests the case may have involved some of the first major disputes to arise in Michigan's newly regulated market.
The court's decision in *Davis* will likely influence how similar disputes are resolved in Michigan and potentially in other states with comparable online gambling regulations. The case touches on fundamental questions about player protections, operator responsibilities, and the resolution of technical disputes in digital gambling environments.
For Michigan's online gambling industry, the decision provides guidance on how courts will interpret contractual obligations between operators and players when technical issues arise. The ruling may also influence how gaming operators structure their terms of service and handle similar disputes in the future.
The case also highlights the importance of the MGCB's dispute resolution process, which provides an administrative avenue for resolving gambling-related conflicts before they escalate to lengthy court proceedings.
While the specific outcome of the Supreme Court's decision was not detailed in available records, the case represents a significant development in Michigan's evolving legal landscape for online gambling and player protection rights.