Michigan Court Dismisses Alleged Compulsive Gamblers’ Class-Action Complaint

A Michigan circuit court judge recently ruled that putative class-action plaintiffs Virginia Ormanian and Norma Astourian had failed to state a viable legal claim against the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) and three Detroit-area casinos. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had failed to recognize that they were on the MGCB’s voluntary “disassociated persons” list and exclude them from casino premises, causing them to suffer additional gambling losses. In dismissing the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the court held that “no duty exists on the part of casinos to administer [exclusion] lists such that problem gamblers are identified and removed.”

In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that they were compulsive gamblers who, after recognizing their gambling problems and joining Gamblers Anonymous, placed themselves on the MGCB’s “disassociated persons” list. Michigan casinos are required by statute to evict any “disassociated persons” found on casino premises. 

Both plaintiffs claimed that the defendant casinos made no effort to stop them from gambling thereafter. Astourian claimed casino personnel routinely greeted her by name, a practice that continued despite repeated complaints to the MGCB. Ormanian alleged she gave her name to casino personnel for tax purposes on several occasions while she was on the exclusion list, but was never confronted or asked to leave the premises. The plaintiffs’ claims included breach of statutory duty, fraud and invasion of privacy.

In their motion for summary disposition, the defendants argued that: (1) Michigan gaming statutes conferred “exclusive jurisdiction” over gaming issues to the MGCB, meaning that the plaintiffs had to pursue administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit; (2) the plaintiffs had executed a release holding the defendants harmless for any consequences when they placed themselves on the “disassociated persons” list; and (3) the Michigan statutes establishing the “disassociated persons” list barred the lawsuit because they expressly stated they did not intend to create a private cause of action or otherwise confer legal rights upon casino patrons.

The court rejected the defendants’ first two arguments.  First, the court held that it, rather than the MGCB, had jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims because there was no administrative venue that afforded relief. Second, the court reasoned that the release executed by the plaintiffs covered only injuries arising from their placement on the “disassociated persons” list and not injuries related to the defendants’ failure to properly enforce the list. Therefore, the court concluded the release did not bar plaintiffs’ claims.

The defendants’ final argument, however, was successful.  Noting statutory language indicating that the Michigan legislature did not intend to establish a private cause of action for violation of the relevant gaming statutes, the court held that “[p]laintiffs cannot argue that the [d]efendants should have used the list to protect them better.” 

The court also held that the defendants had no common law duty to “administer [exclusion] lists such that problem gamblers are identified and removed.” Such a duty, the court reasoned, “would be akin to a duty to rescue, which the common law rejects.”  Moreover, the court concluded, even if the defendants engaged in all of the “reckless conduct” they were accused of, they did not cause the plaintiffs to harm themselves by engaging in additional gambling activity.

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of intent to appeal.

This decision represents a significant victory for the gaming industry and is part of a growing body of case law confirming that casinos have no statutory or common law duty to identify and exclude compulsive gamblers. The case also provides useful precedent in states such as Michigan that have specific provisions in their voluntary self-exclusion regulations indicating that the regulations do not create a private cause of action for casino patrons. Conversely, the court’s ruling regarding the release language should be cause for re-examining the specific language in any similar releases relating to self-exclusion.