Although it is a bit of a stretch, the Atlantic Lottery Corporation is going to be facing a lawsuit that has been brought on it by two dissatisfied players after their proposal to the Supreme Court became certified by Justice Alphonsus Faour.
The claim against the casino is that they used a “deceptive and misrepresented view of their games to the public” and relies off of an affidavit that came out of the University of Waterloo. The Supreme Court determined that there was some evidence that would indicate this to be true, and that the plaintiff in the suit has brought forth an arguable case. The merits of the case have created a frame that holds pretty solid and might be a legitimate case against the gambling giant.
The plaintiffs are using the council of Fred Small from Gander and Douglas Babstock from Mount Pearl, who make the case that this issue falls under the Statute of Anne of 1710. This has also been known as the Gambling Act of 1710. If you didn’t catch it, this is a 306 year old statue that makes it quite an interesting case to argue. This law allows for gamblers that have lost money at a casino establishment to sue the venue that they lost their money from for lost money and treble damages.
It should be noted however that Justice Faour pointed out in his ruling that the defendant may be correct in their argument that the act may no longer be in effect due to the length of time that has occurred since the act was implemented, and so the argument for the plaintiff is going to rely on whether or not they can convince a judge that the law is still valid. This would be a landmark case for consumers that would be detrimental to casinos if it ends up being found that the Act is still in effect, opening up a landslide of lawsuits to recover lost money.
This class action lawsuit is put out for all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that have used the video lottery terminals from the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. These games are much different from lotteries due to the fact that they offer a perception of winning money through cognitive distortions while the player slowly loses their balance. This is the property of these games that the lawsuit rests on, as the plaintiffs claim that these games are deceptive and addictive which makes them dangerous during intentional usage. The argument goes on to further state that Atlantic Lottery Corp. knowingly ensures that these machines are addictive and continues to allow consumers to use them anyways.
A similar lawsuit had been filed back in 1988 in the United States when the Nevada Gaming Commission had found that some 3-reel slot games were being programmed to convince players that they would win on their next spin, despite there being no change in odds. These machines were banned as a result.