Jacqueline Davis sued BetMGM in 2021 after it refused to settle a $3 million win in a roulette game. Back in 2021, she played the game for five consecutive days and was able to win as much as $11 million. By the end of her winning streak, she was down to just $3 million - but BetMGM refused to pay, citing a glitch in the Luck O' Roulette game.

A multimillion-dollar legal battle between a Detroit woman and BetMGM over an online roulette win has landed in the Michigan Supreme Court, raising critical questions about who holds the authority to resolve disputes in the state's online gambling industry.

A $3 million legal spat

Jacqueline Davis claims she won $3 million playing the 'Luck O' Roulette' game on BetMGM's platform in 2021. The Detroiter says she played nonstop over five days, at one point amassing $11 million in winnings before cashing out at $3 million. But when she tried to collect her earnings, the casino told her the game had suffered a software malfunction and refused to pay beyond an initial $100,000.

Davis, who was given the $100,000 in cash at the MGM Grand Detroit, said BetMGM offered her the funds on the condition that she sign a confidentiality agreement. According to court documents, the agreement would have required her to return the money if news of the glitch became public. She refused, and instead filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and fraud.

A software malfunction resulting in a glitch?

BetMGM does not dispute that the game malfunctioned. However, it contends that the win was invalid due to a software glitch and that Davis had no legal grounds to sue. The company pointed to Michigan's Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA), which it argues grants the Michigan Gaming Control Board exclusive authority over online gambling disputes.

Both the circuit court and the Michigan Court of Appeals sided with BetMGM, concluding that Davis's case falls outside the jurisdiction of the courts. In a 2 to 1 decision, the appellate court held that LIGA vests exclusive regulatory power with the MGCB, particularly in disputes that involve complex technical issues like game software malfunctions.

An intriguing twist

But in a twist that has shifted the dynamics of the case, the MGCB itself submitted an amicus brief stating it lacks the authority - and resources - to adjudicate civil disputes such as Davis's. The board emphasized that its role is regulatory, not judicial, and it does not act as an arbitrator between casinos and players in matters involving private contractual claims.

This unexpected position from the state's gaming watchdog caught the attention of the Michigan Supreme Court, which granted Davis leave to appeal in May 2024. During oral arguments last week, justices questioned whether BetMGM's interpretation of LIGA was valid if the MGCB itself denies having jurisdiction.

"What do you make of the fact that the MGCB itself says, "We don't have jurisdiction"?" Chief Justice-Elect Megan Cavanagh asked during the hearing. "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?"

BetMGM adamant about its position in the case

BetMGM's attorney, Norman Ankers, maintained that the MGCB's interpretation of its authority should not override the plain language of the statute. He insisted that the courts must defer to the legal framework established by LIGA, which, in the company's view, excludes traditional courtrooms from resolving online gambling disputes.

Davis's attorney, David Steingold, countered that even if a glitch occurred, BetMGM had multiple opportunities to detect and correct the issue. He noted that Michigan law requires licensed operators to monitor their games daily - a safeguard that, he argues, BetMGM failed to uphold during Davis's five-day roulette session.

The Supreme Court's ruling could have severe implications for online gambling in Michigan, particularly in clarifying whether players have the right to take operators to court over disputed payouts or if such matters fall solely under the purview of the MGCB.