On July 22, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Jacqueline Davis may pursue her $3.29 million claim against BetMGM, overturning earlier decisions and sending the case to Wayne Circuit Court. The justices rejected arguments that state law channels disputes like this exclusively to the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB).
This case, which stems from an online roulette session, casts a clear light on how Michigan’s regulated iGaming framework, which includes online poker sites with strict oversight, responsible gambling tools, and a formal dispute procedure, is built to safeguard players.
Court records state that Davis deposited $50 on March 18, 2021, played “Luck O’ the Roulette,” and over six days saw her account balance climb to $3,289,500.75. She withdrew $100,000 on March 21. BetMGM later told her that its review detected “unusual activity,” said a malfunction began around her 28th play, and maintained the balance should have been zero by play 368. The operator reset the remaining funds to zero. Davis sued for fraud, conversion, and breach of contract.
Lower courts sided with BetMGM. The Supreme Court disagreed and restored Davis’s claims to the trial docket, holding that ordinary tort and contract remedies survive unless the Legislature removes them or an MGCB action creates a direct conflict.
As explained in a commentary on the Supreme Court’s ruling on statutory impact on common-law claims, the governing law in this case does not remove common-law remedies unless they directly conflict with actions by the Michigan Gaming Control Board. This means that Davis still has a path to court despite a comprehensive regulatory scheme.
BetMGM’s investigation noted that “Luck O’ the Roulette” was taken down for Michigan players. Namely, according to the requirements of the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA), BetMGM reported the malfunction of “Luck O’ the Roulette” to the Michigan Gaming Control Board and removed the game from the state’s online market. The MGCB, which licenses and enforces, does not adjudicate private tort or contract disputes, so its involvement did not bar Davis’s lawsuit.
The court reframed the legal discussion by replacing the loose use of ‘pre-emption’ with the more precise concept of ‘abrogation,’ confirming that common-law rights remain unless the Legislature speaks in unmistakable terms. This clarification extends beyond gambling, as regulated industries often argue that comprehensive statutes silently displace private claims.
The decision comes at a time when Michigan’s online gambling industry is thriving, with the MGCB reporting approximately $2.9 billion in gross receipts during 2024. This growth highlights why the court’s interpretation of player rights under LIGA carries weight, ensuring legal clarity in a market where compliance and consumer protection are under constant scrutiny.
With the case back in Wayne Circuit Court, Davis now seeks a ruling on the merits of her allegations. For Michigan players, the decision confirms that regulation and licensing run in parallel with access to the courts; for operators, it underscores that technical reporting and post‑incident game removals do not automatically foreclose contracts or fraud liability.