Slot malfunction bad lawsuit
At first i thought it was another of those malfunction voids play ridiculous $43 mil jackpots but this one is quite different
Here is the final ruling. I think the lawyers were incompetent for the plaintiff. Im wondering if the wizard could have testified and what his current opinion is
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ms-supreme-court/1326082.html
So Ms Eash spins the top symbols on a slot and wins a $1mil jackpot at IP in Biloxi
Only IP says malfunction. The machine only pays $8000
Gaming commission does investigation and uncovers following
Machine had 3 different settings
Standalone with $8000 max pay
Standalone progressive with $1mil cap
Linked progressive with no cap
IP requested standalone machine but IGT incorrectly set the machine as a standalone $1mil progressive
Even though the signage clearly stated the top jackpot was only $8000 its settings were for $1mil
The commission ruled in miss Eash favor as the machine did not malfunction and she truly had the "lucky" spin per the odds
IP appealed
It climbed up to state supreme court
Which ruled in IPs favor
In the judgement there were two contracts examined
The IP lease agreement had an indemnity clause forbidding IP from recouping from IGT even though the mistake was traced to IGT. IP was considered unfairly on the hook
Secondly they concluded the signage stipulating a top payout of $8000 in full view constituted a valid contract which Miss Eash was held too.
She was awarded $8000 final judgement
IMO the plaintiff lawyers were incompetent. They should have made the mathematical argument that every person who had previously played had paid into the progressive so it was not IP but previous customers paying the jackpot
Also those customers were playing a game which probably violated state minimum payback (that is by paying only $8000 of $1mil the payback was then altered as to violate state law)
As such it was the signage that was wrong and therefore a void contract
Anyway its too late now but this really has made me upset all day lol
I doubt the difference between $8k and $1M jackpot would be the deciding factor between the game being below or above minimum payback requirement. The top jackpot is usually a small %. I'm not sure about top dollar.
IMO, since it showed the top payout being $8k, then the ultimate decision was correct in having IP pay her $8k. Well, maybe not 100% "correct", but not a complete hornswoggle.
I don't know how those games are setup. Is it possible to set it to the normal setting (how it should have been) and manually adjust the top payout? I think so, since every now and then you'll see a top payout of some weird amount that's non-progressive. Or was it setup so that the top payout was $1M, making the frequency of the top payout super duper low?
Quote: RSWhat did the progressive amount supposedly start at? Seems like it was just set to a $1M base jackpot. (#4)
I doubt the difference between $8k and $1M jackpot would be the deciding factor between the game being below or above minimum payback requirement. The top jackpot is usually a small %. I'm not sure about top dollar.
IMO, since it showed the top payout being $8k, then the ultimate decision was correct in having IP pay her $8k. Well, maybe not 100% "correct", but not a complete hornswoggle.
I don't know how those games are setup. Is it possible to set it to the normal setting (how it should have been) and manually adjust the top payout? I think so, since every now and then you'll see a top payout of some weird amount that's non-progressive. Or was it setup so that the top payout was $1M, making the frequency of the top payout super duper low?
Good questions
I dont have the answer
However gaming commission sided with patron that jackpot was legit win based on odds and settings
Higher courts overruled based on contract legality
I'm surprised the casino didn't try to negotiate once gaming ruled in her favor. Perhaps they did and someone suggested that since gaming ruled in her favor there would be no problem with the higher courts.
More often than not, I think gaming has made good decisions overall.
I've heard a number of cases like this and all of them seem to go the casino's way, which I think is right. I used to have the opposite position on this matter, when I was younger and more idealistic.
Quote: WizardIf forced to take a side, I have to go with the IP. I'm sure there was a sign somewhere saying "malfunction voids all pays and plays." It was a malfunction, albeit human error, that caused the machine to incorrectly announce a $1M win. Plus, signage indicated the top win was $8,000.
I've heard a number of cases like this and all of them seem to go the casino's way, which I think is right. I used to have the opposite position on this matter, when I was younger and more idealistic.
I disagree that it was a malfunction. It was not a malfunction. The machine operated in the exact way it was programmed to operate. She won the jackpot with the correct reels. In other type of situations the machine would display a jackpot when there was no win. In this case the player got the correct symbols. Since they got the correct symbols for a jackpot then they should be awarded the jackpot. The argument is not if it was a malfuntion, but what should the jackpot be.
I do agree with the outcome. When everyone sat down they all played based on the 8k award. I would have fought for the million but knew in my heart that I was probably going to get 8k.
I would like to see a picture of the machine though. Was there anywhere on the machine that showed a progressive that was climbing, or was this just a standard machine where all of the screens showed fix wins?
Quote: WizardIf forced to take a side, I have to go with the IP. I'm sure there was a sign somewhere saying "malfunction voids all pays and plays." It was a malfunction, albeit human error, that caused the machine to incorrectly announce a $1M win. Plus, signage indicated the top win was $8,000.
I've heard a number of cases like this and all of them seem to go the casino's way, which I think is right. I used to have the opposite position on this matter, when I was younger and more idealistic.
Does this mean human error is considered within malfunction parameters?
That sounds a bit scary and catchall to me
For example if you knew your freezer needed to be set high to avoid an ice cream cake melting
And when you returned home your cake was melted because you had accidentally set it to low
Would you declare the fridge had malfunctioned? Or accept the fridge worked as it was supposed to and it was human error
Not trying to be argumentative. You yourself said your opinion has changed so this seems like a grey area
I agree with others, there was no malfunction.
Quote: DRichIt was the correct outcome. You can not win more than the advertised maximum on the machine.
I agree with others, there was no malfunction.
Now what about on games where it says "win up to 200,000 credits", but that 200k credits is from a line-pay, and the game has a bonus round. Could you get screwed from that?
Quote: GWAEI would like to see a picture of the machine though. Was there anywhere on the machine that showed a progressive that was climbing, or was this just a standard machine where all of the screens showed fix wins?
Section 1 of the court decision (Note: I'm calling the funny paragraph symbol a "section" because I cannot easily duplicate it) indicates that there was "nothing on the machine [that] indicated a patron could win more than $8,000." So, even if a portion of player proceeds went into a separate "progressive" container, nothing showed that occuring.
(Not sure who gets all the previous patron $$ that went to the progressive, but the court decision -- rightly or wrongly -- ignores this aspect of the issue. Section 18 notes that the Gaming Commission previously decided the patron should receive $1M because of the Commission's "broader responsibility in some cases, without ignoring the law or regulations, to insure that reasonable fairness and the perception of fairness prevails." IMHO, the Gaming Commission decision assures any progressive $$ the casino collected went to patron(s) and not illegally to the casino.)
I suggest IGT owes money to somebody, and here's why:
Section 4 states the whole problem was the result of an IGT programmer "mistakenly" setting both the $1M jackpot amount and the "Stand-Alone Progressive" indicator on the machine.
Section 10 examines relevant "items" of the contract between IGT and the casino, where item 9 includes "hold harmless" wording that largely indemnifies IGT against any and all claims "which may arise as a result of the existence, use or operation of the Equipment on the Lessee's premises."
Section 10 continues, referencing item 15 of the IGT contract: "Lessee agrees to indemnify IGT and hold IGT harmless from and against liability or damage from injury or loss arising out of the possession or use of the Equipment on the premises of the Lessee, over which IGT has no control. Within the warranty limitations set forth above, IGT shall be responsible for the acts and omissions of its employees and agents." Ah, ha! This is the very important exception, overlooked elsewhere.
Section 11 begins by completely ignoring this important exception in the contract, stating: "From the language in the agreement, it is clear that Imperial Palace agreed to indemnify IGT against any claims, and it is equally clear that IGT had not agreed to indemnify Imperial Place." IMHO, the one exception -- where IGT accepts responsibility -- is the precise issue that should have decided this case. The Supreme Court of Mississippi should have remanded the case to the lower court to determine relevant responsibility for the malfunction, given IGT admits responsibility for the acts and omissions of its employees and agents.
Wiz, where did I screw up in my analysis? You understand this mumbo-jumbo much better than I do, and you apparently disagree. Please tell me. Curious minds want to know.
Quote: CrystalMathThese machines have a default contribution of 0% on stand alone progressives. Also, if the game is set to, say 92%, it will pay 92% regardless of however the contribution is set. So, there’s no contribution due to be paid out.
I think that completely ruins LuckyPhow's premise and conclusion.
Quote: CrystalMathThese machines have a default contribution of 0% on stand alone progressives. Also, if the game is set to, say 92%, it will pay 92% regardless of however the contribution is set. So, there’s no contribution due to be paid out.
If you say so, I suppose. And, good to know. But, this clearly was a side issue in my post, as noted by the parentheses.
The central issue I discussed arose not because of the machine, but because acts of IGT staff resulted in a very real -- apparently in the eyes of the Gaming Commission -- issue of "fairness" concerning the correct amount of a payout. IGT screwed up by setting the wrong payout. IGT should have been made to shoulder responsibility for causing this problem.
Quote: CrystalMathThese machines have a default contribution of 0% on stand alone progressives. Also, if the game is set to, say 92%, it will pay 92% regardless of however the contribution is set. So, there’s no contribution due to be paid out.
If i understand correctly
The machine with or without patron contributions worked as it should per the setting
That is if IP had known and requested a standalone progressive setting the win would have been valid
The argument of IP therefore is simply they didnt want to hand out a $1mil win so asked for a setting that avoided that
In theory it could be argued the IP put the INCORRECT signage on the machine
Either way I think Luckyphow caught a valid distinction in the contract missed by attorneys and judges. IGT must have been laughing all the way to the bank
Quote: LuckyPhowIf you say so, I suppose. And, good to know. But, this clearly was a side issue in my post, as noted by the parentheses.
The central issue I discussed arose not because of the machine, but because acts of IGT staff resulted in a very real -- apparently in the eyes of the Gaming Commission -- issue of "fairness" concerning the correct amount of a payout. IGT screwed up by setting the wrong payout. IGT should have been made to shoulder responsibility for causing this problem.
You just learned an aspect of journalism and law
Never put 2 arguments together (or article subjects)
When one is disproven people have a tendency to disallow everything.
Your first point (contributions) was separate from contract law argument. But they got merged because they were in the same post
I personally found this lesson frustrating but true
And it probably is what makes people wary of journalists. It may seem important info is left out of articles but the above example is why
(Anyway dont want to hijack my own thread so back to slots)
This whole court decision has left a bad taste in my mouth. And its all moot since it happened a decade ago
Quote: darkozThe IP lease agreement had an indemnity clause forbidding IP from recouping from IGT even though the mistake was traced to IGT. IP was considered unfairly on the hook
This seems like the real problem. Just because the casino had an unfavorable contract with IGT, shouldn't mean that they can get out of another contract -- the one they had with the player.
Quote: TomGThis seems like the real problem. Just because the casino had an unfavorable contract with IGT, shouldn't mean that they can get out of another contract -- the one they had with the player.
I agree
Unfortunately the court also declared the signage stating max payout of $8000 to be THE CONTRACT between player and casino
By playing with that signage visible patron agreed to terms of payout
But that signage was based on undsrstanding of a setting. The machines payout was indeed higher. I would argue the contract with patron void in those circumstances
If the machine did display the progressive then they should be on the hook for the million dollars. I’d also like to know their control procedures to understand who exactly touched the machine, if anyone else signed off on the settings, if regulators were present, if GLI ever did an audit on that machine, etc. I have a hard time believing that a single person set up the machine and there was no other verification.
Quote: CrystalMathI can see how this is frustrating for a player, but the contracted payment was right there on the glass.
If the machine did display the progressive then they should be on the hook for the million dollars. I’d also like to know their control procedures to understand who exactly touched the machine, if anyone else signed off on the settings, if regulators were present, if GLI ever did an audit on that machine, etc. I have a hard time believing that a single person set up the machine and there was no other verification.
I agree with your comments. To me, they underscore the propriety of the Gaming Commission embracing issues of gaming fairness, as the public perception of -- or lack of -- fairness not only affects revenue of all casinos, but also revenue collected by the various government agencies.
If IGT employees screwed up, and if IGT's contract says it is responsible for actions of its employees, and if that resulted in the machine announcing to the patron, "Somebody owes you $1M," then the wording on this or that part of some real or implied contract may have to take a back seat to overall gaming fairness.
Quote: CrystalMathI have a hard time believing that a single person set up the machine and there was no other verification.
Sadly, that is a very likely scenario from my experiences. I know that I have set up many slot machines by myself and I am not even a slot tech.
Quote: DRichSadly, that is a very likely scenario from my experiences. I know that I have set up many slot machines by myself and I am not even a slot tech.
That is sad. (And differs from my own discussions with slot techs who describe inter-layered oversight and meticulous documenting of each person involved in setting up and testing new machines before they are put on the floor.)
But, if true, IMHO it underscores the importance of each and every state gaming commission keeping an eagle eye on issues involving patron fairness when payout disputes arise.
Quote: LuckyPhow
But, if true, IMHO it underscores the importance of each and every state gaming commission keeping an eagle eye on issues involving patron fairness when payout disputes arise.
Yes, in Nevada a casino must call Nevada Gaming to investigate any disputed amount over $500. A patron can call them for any disputed amount and they will send an agent out to investigate.
Quote: DRichYes, in Nevada a casino must call Nevada Gaming to investigate any disputed amount over $500. A patron can call them for any disputed amount and they will send an agent out to investigate.
As one would expect, especially in Nevada, the Gaming Capital of the country.
I take comfort knowing I can have a Mississippi gaming agent standing at my table or slot machine (usually) in less than 30 minutes if I ever feel the need. I know the agent may not see it my way, but I know I can get something resembling "adult supervision" if warranted. And, that's as it should be.
Quote: LuckyPhowI agree with your comments. To me, they underscore the propriety of the Gaming Commission embracing issues of gaming fairness, as the public perception of -- or lack of -- fairness not only affects revenue of all casinos, but also revenue collected by the various government agencies.
If IGT employees screwed up, and if IGT's contract says it is responsible for actions of its employees, and if that resulted in the machine announcing to the patron, "Somebody owes you $1M," then the wording on this or that part of some real or implied contract may have to take a back seat to overall gaming fairness.
"overall gaming fairness" is not a contract. Contracts are very difficult to break. A contract that says "maximum $8,000 payout" in plain view of the player takes a back seat to the bowels of machine programming that someone else messed up.
If they accidentally hung a million dollar sign on a machine set to pay out $8000 max, if you hit the top prize you'd get $1 million?
Of course not.Quote: RigondeauxSo I assume the opposite applies.
If they accidentally hung a million dollar sign on a machine set to pay out $8000 max, if you hit the top prize you'd get $1 million?
We have seen situations where players were getting cheated for a while yet the casino only had to make good on the current situation and kept they the rest of the profits due to the glitches.
We kinda see this with slot tickets, the casino can keep a portion of the money on lost and expired tickets. Its absolutely outrageous and I have no idea why they would make this rule. Tickets should act like cash/chips unless they can absolutely prove there was some type of shenanigans.
Quote: AxelWolfOf course not.
We have seen situations where players were getting cheated for a while yet the casino only had to make good on the current situation and kept they the rest of the profits due to the glitches.
We kinda see this with slot tickets, the casino can keep a portion of the money on lost and expired tickets. Its absolutely outrageous and I have no idea why they would make this rule. Tickets should act like cash/chips unless they can absolutely prove there was some type of shenanigans.
I'm no big city lawyer, but that seems like a funny way for a contract to work.
Quote: RigondeauxSo I assume the opposite applies.
If they accidentally hung a million dollar sign on a machine set to pay out $8000 max, if you hit the top prize you'd get $1 million?
correct
Quote: AxelWolfWe kinda see this with slot tickets, the casino can keep a portion of the money on lost and expired tickets. Its absolutely outrageous and I have no idea why they would make this rule. Tickets should act like cash/chips unless they can absolutely prove there was some type of shenanigans.
That’s how it is in Pennsylvania. Slot tickets never expire.
He said the expiration dates were implemented entirely because they got sick of Axel coming in with faded, year old tickets with rum and astroglide spilled all over them.
Quote: AxelWolfOf course not.
We have seen situations where players were getting cheated for a while yet the casino only had to make good on the current situation and kept they the rest of the profits due to the glitches.
We kinda see this with slot tickets, the casino can keep a portion of the money on lost and expired tickets. Its absolutely outrageous and I have no idea why they would make this rule. Tickets should act like cash/chips unless they can absolutely prove there was some type of shenanigans.
I think a month is too short considering sone people take them home with them and then forget about them and find them like 2 months later.
That was vitamin oil.Quote: RigondeauxI asked the manager of a cash cage about it once.
He said the expiration dates were implemented entirely because they got sick of Axel coming in with faded, year old tickets with rum and astroglide spilled all over them.
no joke.
I was like WTF is astoglide? I thought it was a misspelled word at first glance so I had to google it.
You sick FK, no doubt, it was the fact that you had it in your pocket as you left your buddies house that inspired the use of it in your post.
I now love Pennsylvania as much as Rigondeaux loves astroglide.Quote: gamerfreakThat’s how it is in Pennsylvania. Slot tickets never expire.
Quote: DRichSadly, that is a very likely scenario from my experiences. I know that I have set up many slot machines by myself and I am not even a slot tech.
Probably why you occasionally see gaffed VP paytables exist every now and again. No one is perfect.
Quote: RigondeauxSo I assume the opposite applies.
If they accidentally hung a million dollar sign on a machine set to pay out $8000 max, if you hit the top prize you'd get $1 million?
LOL
Doubt it. "Malfunction voids all plays and pays."
Quote: AxelWolfI now love Pennsylvania and Missouri as much as Rigondeaux loves astroglide.
FYP. Missouri doesn't allow TITOs to expire either.
As for the OP, the $8000 payglass argument is fine and dandy, but I am terribly annoyed by the fact that the odds of hitting the million dollar progressive setting must be terribly, terribly lower than an $8000 max machine. I feel she should be owed something more than $8k. That error almost certainly harmed her and other players long term. She was playing a machine set to pay a $1m+ progressive and she only got $8k!
You would think they would have tried to negotiate a fair settlement to avoid pissing off gaming and to avoid bad press. If gaming rules in your favor you probably assume the higher courts would as well.Quote: tringlomaneProbably why you occasionally see gaffed VP paytables exist every now and again. No one is perfect.
LOL
Doubt it. "Malfunction voids all plays and pays."
FYP. Missouri doesn't allow TITOs to expire either.
As for the OP, the $8000 payglass argument is fine and dandy, but I am terribly annoyed by the fact that the odds of hitting the million dollar progressive setting must be terribly, terribly lower than an $8000 max machine. I feel she should be owed something more than $8k. That error almost certainly harmed her and other players long term. She was playing a machine set to pay a $1m+ progressive and she only got $8k!
I would love to know if the casino ever even considered giving her anything more than just the 8K.
Quote: AxelWolfI now love Pennsylvania as much as Rigondeaux loves astroglide.
No you don't.
Quote: tringlomaneAs for the OP, the $8000 payglass argument is fine and dandy, but I am terribly annoyed by the fact that the odds of hitting the million dollar progressive setting must be terribly, terribly lower than an $8000 max machine. I feel she should be owed something more than $8k. That error almost certainly harmed her and other players long term. She was playing a machine set to pay a $1m+ progressive and she only got $8k!
So true. However, IMHO that's not all.
Since the machine was set as a progressive, some small percentage of each patron's play almost certainly went into an accumulator for the bonus payout. We all see it on progressive slot machines that are set correctly. The "current progressive" amount increases a few cents every $10 or so. The machine shows the patron the constantly changing win amount for the progressive bonus. In many cases it also shows a lower win amount if the patron doesn't play with max credits on all lines (or similar). Winning that lower amount usually doesn't affect the progressive bonus payout amount.
So, what happened to THAT money, the amount of money dribbled into the progressive payout accumulator, all of which is 100 percent player money? Of course, this wasn't referenced in the court case, but the Gaming Commission is usually on top of issues such as this. I hope they made the Casino provide all that money in a promotional give-away or something similar so it went back to the gaming patrons. I hope so, but I wouldn't bet on it.
1) a progressive, 2) set to not increase ever, and 3) have a lower return overall in the first place.
It would make sense, but I don't know it's true. I'd assume a progressive version might be available for a lower return than a non-progressive, and by manipulating the progressive, an overall lower return could be accomplished. I have no experience to know if such a thing could be done, or would need be done, just using my imagination to wonder.
Quote: LuckyPhowSo true. However, IMHO that's not all.
Since the machine was set as a progressive, some small percentage of each patron's play almost certainly went into an accumulator for the bonus payout. We all see it on progressive slot machines that are set correctly. The "current progressive" amount increases a few cents every $10 or so. The machine shows the patron the constantly changing win amount for the progressive bonus. In many cases it also shows a lower win amount if the patron doesn't play with max credits on all lines (or similar). Winning that lower amount usually doesn't affect the progressive bonus payout amount.
So, what happened to THAT money, the amount of money dribbled into the progressive payout accumulator, all of which is 100 percent player money? Of course, this wasn't referenced in the court case, but the Gaming Commission is usually on top of issues such as this. I hope they made the Casino provide all that money in a promotional give-away or something similar so it went back to the gaming patrons. I hope so, but I wouldn't bet on it.
CrystalMath already said that machine defaults to a 0% progressive contribution. So, unless they changed that parameter the machine wouldn't be allocating any money to the progressive. Even if they had modified that parameter, the machine does not hold extra money for that. That is still calculated out of the base payback of the machine.
Quote: DRichCrystalMath already said that machine defaults to a 0% progressive contribution. So, unless they changed that parameter the machine wouldn't be allocating any money to the progressive. Even if they had modified that parameter, the machine does not hold extra money for that. That is still calculated out of the base payback of the machine.
That's really good to know. I didn't understand CM's explanation, that there would be 0 meter movement.
Quote: AxelWolfYou would think they would have tried to negotiate a fair settlement to avoid pissing off gaming and to avoid bad press. If gaming rules in your favor you probably assume the higher courts would as well.
I would love to know if the casino ever even considered giving her anything more than just the 8K.
I think in most jurisdictions, the casino can't choose to pay more than what is lawfully owed. This happened with the NYC casino and the woman who thought she won $46 million. The casino wanted to pay her more than the correct amount but gaming said no.
It's sorta like a pension plan/Social Security in that if they accidentally overpay you, you have to pay it back. The law says "this is how much you get", so that's how much you get, no more, no less.
My friend was in a casino for the first time yesterday. He is from Mexico and in town to wrestle and do a seminar.
We sit at a machine and I tell him he can bet anywhere from 27 cents to $2.70. He plays a few spins and I stop paying attention.
Then he yelps in excitement. He has nine gold sevens on the screen and the pay table indicates this is the top payout, but it didn't pay.
Reading the fine print, we discovered that at the .27 cent bet, only bar wins pay. At .81 cents, certain symbols turn wild but only at max bet do 7s pay. Very confusing to a casual player.
As the nine gold 7s must be very rare, how does one determine the payout on a machine where there is a good possibility the rare top winning combo pays nothing when hit. Top hits- all gold or all silver sevens are progressives. Had he been playing full coin, he would have won almost six hundred dollars.
Do the gold and silver symbols appear more when they aren't in pay?
Quote: KevinAAI think in most jurisdictions, the casino can't choose to pay more than what is lawfully owed. This happened with the NYC casino and the woman who thought she won $46 million. The casino wanted to pay her more than the correct amount but gaming said no.
It's sorta like a pension plan/Social Security in that if they accidentally overpay you, you have to pay it back. The law says "this is how much you get", so that's how much you get, no more, no less.
The casino can pay more if they want. If the casino choose to comp her free rooms and dining for life, gaming can't tell them they can't.
1M in free play but only 24 hours to use it.Quote: billryanThe casino can pay more if they want. If the casino choose to comp her free rooms and dining for life, gaming can't tell them they can't.
The winner got one spin on every machine in the two story casino, and possibly one bet at every table. If he hit a jackpot on every machine, a player supposedly could pocket a cool billion.
Obviously I would take it, but it sounds very annoying, tedious to keep track of and very time-consuming.Quote: billryanI remember when the Sands AC had a billion dollar giveaway.
The winner got one spin on every machine in the two story casino,
I mean, how would that even work? Key each machine, someone following the player with cash to insert into each machine? Do they kick off players of occupied machines? Shut down the casino during that time?
I have to imagine to some people the thought of being able to do that sounds absolutely fabulous.
Quote: AxelWolfObviously I would take it, but it sounds very annoying, tedious to keep track of and very time-consuming.
I have to imagine to some people the thought of being able to do that sounds absolutely fabulous.
That's exactly why I find it hard to believe a casino would even have that promotion.
