Sam Antar v. BetMGM LLC
24-1364
| 3rd Cir. | Apr 28, 2025Background
- Sam A. Antar, a self-identified problem gambler, sued several casino and online gaming operators in New Jersey after losing more than $24 million gambling between 2019 and 2020.
- Antar claimed his VIP hosts, knowing of his compulsive gambling, enticed him with frequent bonuses and incentives, exacerbating his addiction.
- He brought claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) for unconscionable business practices and common-law negligence.
- The District Court dismissed both claims, finding Antar failed to state a plausible claim for relief under either theory.
- Antar appealed to the Third Circuit, which reviewed the dismissal de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CFA claim—unconscionable business conduct | Defendants enticed Antar to gamble, knowing of his addiction, through misleading solicitations. | Communications were not misleading; Antar knew bonuses were intended to encourage gambling. | No CFA violation; no capacity to mislead nor ascertainable loss pleaded. |
| CFA—ascertainable loss | Losses are quantifiable: money Antar lost due to Defendants' enticements. | Gambling losses are not the type of loss the CFA contemplates; Antar received what he bargained for—gambling experience. | No ascertainable loss; received service bargained for. |
| Negligence—duty of care | Casinos owed a duty to compulsive gamblers based on relationship and regulatory training. | No common-law or statutory duty of care to compulsive gamblers; CCA provides limited remedies. | No duty of care recognized under NJ law or CCA. |
| Availability of private right of action under CCA | The CCA's protections should support a private cause of action for damages. | The CCA's scheme intentionally limits private actions and remedies. | No implied private right for damages under the CCA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 647 A.2d 454 (N.J. 1994) (sets standards for CFA claims, including what constitutes unlawful business practices)
- Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 964 A.2d 741 (N.J. 2009) (lists requisite elements for CFA claims)
- Campione v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc., 714 A.2d 299 (N.J. 1998) (addresses scope of remedies under New Jersey Casino Control Act)
- Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 625 A.2d 1110 (N.J. 1993) (sets out factors for analyzing duty of care in New Jersey negligence law)
- Robey v. SPARC Grp. LLC, 311 A.3d 463 (N.J. 2024) (clarifies ascertainable loss under the CFA)
- Zaman v. Felton, 98 A.3d 503 (N.J. 2014) (discusses unconscionable commercial practice under CFA)