Limits on Casino Liability to Compulsive Gamblers under New Jersey Law

Introduction

In Sam Antar v. BetMGM LLC, 3d Cir. No. 24-1364 (Apr. 28, 2025), the Third Circuit addressed for the first time the question whether New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) or common-law negligence permits a problem gambler to sue casinos and online gaming operators for soliciting him to gamble after learning of his addiction. Appellant Sam Antar, a self-described compulsive gambler, alleged that BetMGM LLC, The Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, MGM Resorts International, Entain plc, and related entities—and their VIP hosts—engaged in “unconscionable business practices” under the CFA and breached a duty of care by repeatedly offering bonuses, credits, deposit matches, and other incentives, despite knowing he had a gambling addiction. The District Court dismissed both the CFA and negligence claims for failure to state plausible causes of action. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed, establishing that:

No actionable “unconscionable” practice under the CFA absent a capacity to mislead or quantifiable “ascertainable loss.”
No common-law duty owed by casinos or online gaming platforms to protect a compulsive gambler from his addiction.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit reviewed de novo the District Court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It held that:

CFA Claim. To plead a CFA violation a plaintiff must allege:
- An unlawful practice—here, “unconscionable business conduct.”
- An “ascertainable loss.”
- A causal link between the conduct and the loss.
Antar’s allegations that his hosts offered repeated gambling incentives—even though they knew of his addiction—did not plead any capacity to mislead him as to the nature of the promotions, nor did they quantify an “ascertainable loss” separate from his ordinary gambling losses against odds that favor the house. Accordingly, his CFA claim failed.
Negligence Claim. New Jersey common law requires a duty of care before liability attaches. The Court surveyed state and federal cases and the comprehensive Casino Control Act (“CCA”) regulatory scheme and concluded that neither statute nor precedent imposes a duty on casinos to shield problem gamblers from their addiction or to cease marketing once addiction is known. Thus, the negligence count was also dismissed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co. (647 A.2d 454, 462 (N.J. 1994))—defined “unconscionable” in the CFA context and emphasized the requirement of “capacity to mislead.”
Fenwick v. Kay American Jeep, Inc. (371 A.2d 13 (N.J. 1977))—held that “capacity to mislead” is central to consumer fraud claims.
Thiedemann v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (872 A.2d 783 (N.J. 2005))—clarified the ascertainable loss standard as either the out-of-pocket rule or the benefit-of-the-bargain rule.
D’Agostino v. Maldonado (78 A.3d 527 (N.J. 2013))—found an unconscionable practice where one-sided documents misled the plaintiff.
Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates (70 F.3d 291 (3d Cir. 1995))—recognized the metaphysical problems of causation in gambling losses and rejected negligence claims arising from over-service of alcohol to gamblers at casinos.
Numerous state decisions (e.g., Harrah’s Atl. City v. Dangelico; Taveras v. Resorts Int’l; Caesars Riverboat Casino v. Kephart) uniformly declining to impose a duty on casinos toward compulsive gamblers.
Campione v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc. (714 A.2d 299 (N.J. 1998))—underscored that the Casino Control Act’s “comprehensive and minutely elaborate” scheme provides only narrow civil remedies and preempts broader negligence claims.

2. Legal Reasoning

CFA. The court applied the pleading standard of Iqbal/Twombly, accepting well-pleaded factual allegations as true but requiring factual specificity to support each element. It determined that:

None of the text messages offering bonuses or incentives carried any misrepresentation—Antar knew exactly what was being offered and why.
His total gambling losses of over $24 million were not parsed into “losses caused by misleading conduct” versus ordinary wagering losses under unfavorable odds. Without a method to separate those figures, no “ascertainable loss” was pleaded.

Negligence. Turning to duty, the court surveyed several factors: relationship of the parties, foreseeability of risk, and public policy. It concluded:

Casino operators owe no general duty to protect patrons from self-inflicted gambling harm, even when addiction is known.
The CCA’s explicit regulatory framework—mandating training, self-exclusion, and commission oversight—signals the Legislature’s intent to limit private causes of action and to address problem gambling through administration rather than tort liability.

3. Impact

This decision will have significant ramifications for both litigants and the gaming industry:

Litigation Strategy. Plaintiffs seeking redress for gambling addiction cannot rely on broad interpretations of the CFA or tort theories. They must look to statutory relief—such as the self-exclusion program—or legislative reform.
Casino Practices. Operators may take comfort that standard marketing and VIP outreach—even when directed at known problem gamblers—does not expose them to private CFA or negligence suits, so long as they comply with regulatory training requirements.
Legislative Arena. If stronger consumer protections or private remedies are desired, the decision points to the New Jersey Legislature as the proper forum for reform, since courts lack authority to expand the CCA’s private remedy structure.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”). New Jersey law that prohibits deceptive or unconscionable commercial practices. To sue, a consumer must show misconduct that could mislead, a quantifiable loss, and causation.
Unconscionability. A broad concept of gross unfairness or bad faith in a business transaction. Under New Jersey law it still requires some capacity to mislead or oppress the consumer.
Ascertainable Loss. Money lost or a benefit not received. It must be measurable—e.g., a price difference or a verifiable financial detriment.
Duty of Care. A foundational tort element. Unless the law recognizes a duty (by statute or common law), a defendant cannot be held negligent even if wrongdoing and damage occur.
Casino Control Act (“CCA”). New Jersey’s detailed regulatory scheme for casinos. It provides for licensing, training, self-exclusion programs, and administrative enforcement, but affords only limited private lawsuits for restitution, not broad tort claims.

Conclusion

Sam Antar v. BetMGM cements two critical principles under New Jersey law: first, that inducements to gamble—even when directed to a known compulsive gambler—do not constitute an unconscionable practice or actionable consumer fraud absent misleading representations and a calculable loss; and second, that New Jersey courts will not impose a common-law duty on casinos to protect patrons from their gambling addiction, given the Legislature’s comprehensive regulatory framework. By affirming dismissal of both the CFA and negligence counts, the Third Circuit has clarified the boundaries of casino liability and signaled that any expansion of private remedies for problem gamblers must come from the Legislature rather than the judiciary.