Is it illegal to play on a another person's players card in a casino.

I don't think playing on another persons card is illegal, of course all AP's know that doesn't mean you won't get arrested. The problem comes when you start accepting benefits from another persons card. If you download free play for example that becomes the gray area. The casino will argue that you are misrepresenting yourself and causing theft by deception. Most casinos will just throw you out or trespass you and do nothing further if they believe it is a first time offense.

You can't have theft by deception if you are authorized by your wife to use it
There are certain elements that must be present- I 1000 percent agree you could get arrested as you can for anything - they just need to find a DA to take the case . But theft by deception

Quote: Wizardofnothing

You can't have theft by deception if you are authorized by your wife to use it
There are certain elements that must be present- I 1000 percent agree you could get arrested as you can for anything - they just need to find a DA to take the case . But theft by deception

I think you might be missing the point. You are not deceiving your wife but you are deceiving the casino. The casino has an expectation that the person they offered it to will come to the premises to collect. Most casinos don't care if you use your spouses card, but if you want to do it properly you should get permission each time you are at the casino and plan to do it.

The casinos also have no way to know if you are authorized to use the other persons card so they are assuming some risk.

So- when capital one issues a credit card they expect John Doe to use it- if John Doe gives to his friend - with authorization to go buy groceries- it may be against terms but it's not theft

Quote: DRich

I think you might be missing the point. You are not deceiving your wife but you are deceiving the casino. The casino has an expectation that the person they offered it to will come to the premises to collect. Most casinos don't care if you use your spouses card, but if you want to do it properly you should get permission each time you are at the casino and plan to do it.

The casinos also have no way to know if you are authorized to use the other persons card so they are assuming some risk.

But free play has no cash value (-; . How can you theft entertainment value?

Quote: DRich

The casino has an expectation that the person they offered it to will come to the premises to collect.

Is such an expectation commercially reasonable when they see the bus driver from the old age home sliding cards for all those who did NOT make the morning bus that day? Is it reasonable when there are lines for promotions and they some sliding his card, his wife's card and his daughter's card? Is it reasonable when a craps Floor Person gets handed a card belonging to Stephanie XXXXXX by a 68 year old male who has played for five days under a card of Frank XXXXXXX? They like HIS action enough that they don't mind his running her card up so she can get a few sandwiches and a couple of dinners and some real free play. After all, when she struts her butt through the casino floor to get to the players card desk and then all the way back to the BJ tables , she confers quite a benefit on the casino when the play resumes again.

Quote: Wizardofnothing

So- when capital one issues a credit card they expect John Doe to use it- if John Doe gives to his friend - with authorization to go buy groceries- it may be against terms but it's not theft

There's no injured party in your example. In the FP example, the casino suffers the loss of the money generated by that free play. Without going into specifics as it may impact current cases, there is a strong argument that it is not legal depending on the circumstances. Either way, a simple felony case that goes go trial can cost in excess of $30k for legal fees.

It never really seem to matter who used your card while playing but now there is so many people cheating the system they are on high alert. I still don't think it's a huge deal if somebody is playing on your card but if that person tries to use ot for any sort of comp or promotion it's a big No-No. Also be careful with that as far as your average play I used to let my my wife play on my card and found out that her penny slots was killing my average bet.

Quote: AxelWolf

But free play has no cash value (-; . How can you theft entertainment value?

Cash value and value are completely different. If you take a family picture from someone it might not have cash value but it is still considered theft.

My point is if that it is okay to do, just get permission from the casino and there won't be any doubt.

D rich- that's like saying- if I call capital one and ask them can John use my card they will say now obviously - doesn't mean I can't let him-

Quote: Wizardofnothing

D rich- that's like saying- if I call capital one and ask them can John use my card they will say now obviously - doesn't mean I can't let him-

You are wrong on that example. By him using your card it doesn't cost Capital One anything (actually they make money on the transaction). A better example would be a drawing that only pays if the winner is present otherwise the prize is forfeited. The place holding the drawing has no incentive to let your friend collect for you, it saves them money if you aren't there to collect.

Edit: I should add that it would be fraud for your friend to claim to be you and collect the prize even if he had your permission.

Ok point taken-
Let's go with cvs then with frequent shopper card- if you read the rules it says one card per person non transferable- but people use others and receive equally valuable discounts

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Ok point taken-
Let's go with cvs then with frequent shopper card- if you read the rules it says one card per person non transferable- but people use others and receive equally valuable discounts

't

I don't know all the legalities but I know all those programs have a provision for excluding you for fraudulent use. I don't think they would prosecute, but it wouldn't surprise me if it could be considered against the law. We all know how crazy the courts can be at times.

On a similar note, I remember reading about an employee being charged with theft for buying items for others using his employee discount.

Quote: DRich

I know all those programs have a provision for excluding you for fraudulent use. I don't think they would prosecute, but it wouldn't surprise me if it could be considered against the law. We all know how crazy the courts can be at times.

The law covering Atlantic City:

2C:21-2.1. Offenses involving false government documents, degree of crime 1. a. A person who knowingly sells, offers or exposes for sale, or otherwise transfers, or possesses with the intent to sell, offer or expose for sale, or otherwise transfer, a document, printed form or other writing which falsely purports to be a driver's license or other document issued by a governmental agency and which could be used as a means of verifying a person's identity or age or any other personal identifying information is guilty of a crime of the second degree.

b. A person who knowingly makes, or possesses devices or materials to make, a document or other writing which falsely purports to be a driver's license or other document issued by a governmental agency and which could be used as a means of verifying a person's identity or age or any other personal identifying information is guilty of a crime of the second degree.

c. A person who knowingly exhibits, displays or utters a document or other writing which falsely purports to be a driver's license or other document issued by a governmental agency and which could be used as a means of verifying a person's identity or age or any other personal identifying information is guilty of a crime of the third degree. A violation of R.S. 33:1-81 or section 6 of P.L. 1968, c.313 (C.33:1-81.7) for using the personal identifying information of another to illegally purchase an alcoholic beverage or for using the personal identifying information of another to misrepresent his age for the purpose of obtaining tobacco or other consumer product denied to persons under 18 years of age shall not constitute an offense under this subsection if the actor received only that benefit or service and did not perpetrate or attempt to perpetrate any additional injury or fraud on another.

It is not illegal. Period.

Bob Nersesian represents people who use other players cards (with the permission of those players) if people were backroomed for that purpose BECAUSE IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

It does not qualify for theft by deception because the casino is actually not losing money regardless of what people say on here if everyone (card holders) are in agreement.

Here are 2 competing scenarios. Please examine the bottom line for the casino.

Ex. A) five people agree to take a car ride to casino X and use their free-play and then leave.

Ex. B) five people agree to let one person ride to casino X and use their free-play and then leave.

Bottom line to casino in both circumstances = same.

To put it another way, if the only difference between the crime of theft by deception is that five people didn't park their butts in a slot chair (but its not theft by deception if all five players showed up and did exactly the same thing) that does not rise up to the level of a crime.

EDIT: we are talking about using another persons card with that players permission of course.

DOUBLE EDIT: In fact it might not be too facetious to claim we saved the casino money. Instead of 5 people all showing and using their free-play, taking five free buffets and using five free hotel rooms, only one person showed up and used all the extraneous comps.

I can only relate to you my personal experience.
I was playing $10 on red on the electronic roulette terminal just to pass away the time. After a little while I told my wife to take over and just hit the repeat button.
I wanted to go for a walk and use the toilet. When I came back 15 mins. later 2 suits was standing behind my wife and kept on asking her. Where is Mr. ... and why are you playing for him. I don't know why the casinos are so sticky on this in spite of the reasoning from darkoz which seem so sensible.

deckseven.... I would play at a different casino if you have the choice.

Quote: Deck007

I can only relate to you my personal experience.
I was playing $10 on red on the electronic roulette terminal just to pass away the time. After a little while I told my wife to take over and just hit the repeat button.
I wanted to go for a walk and use the toilet. When I came back 15 mins. later 2 suits was standing behind my wife and kept on asking her. Where is Mr. ... and why are you playing for him. I don't know why the casinos are so sticky on this in spite of the reasoning from darkoz which seem so sensible.

There absolutely has to be more to that story ...

No, This is 100%. the beginning to the end.

Ok - since nothing hapoened would you be able to tell us the casino? Just curious if it's a small casino or jurisdiction

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Ok - since nothing hapoened would you be able to tell us the casino? Just curious if it's a small casino or jurisdiction

Since Deck007 has related this story before, (correct me if I am wrong, Deck), this occurred at Resorts World, NYC shortly after my article on the card flippers (people with sometimes over a hundred cards) using the E-games to earn points for free-play.

There was a huge crackdown at that time and Deck was just caught in the middle of it.

It should also be pointed out that is against the rules of any casino and they (like blackjack card-counting) may strong-arm you as a deterrent, even backrooming you.

The question was to the legality of it and it is perfectly legal if you have the card-holders permission.

As to the PA case, there may be other details including how did the free-play wind up on the cards or how the multiple players cards were being used. Without knowing the full details of the case, we cannot judge based on the sole aspect of multi-carding.

Quote: darkoz

Here are 2 competing scenarios. Please examine the bottom line for the casino.

Ex. A) five people agree to take a car ride to casino X and use their free-play and then leave.

Ex. B) five people agree to let one person ride to casino X and use their free-play and then leave.

Bottom line to casino in both circumstances = same.

I agree with your two examples but how about this one.

A player has $1000 of free play on his account that is going to expire if he doesn't collect it by Friday. Sadly, the player is out of town and will not be back to the casino by Friday. He tells a friend to collect it for him and gives him his card and PIN. The friend collects it and cashes out $500 from the free play. The casino is now out $500, how are they not harmed? I think the casino could claim this to be fraud or theft.

I would love to here how Bob N. would address this.

Quote: DRich

I agree with your two examples but how about this one.

A player has $1000 of free play on his account that is going to expire if he doesn't collect it by Friday. Sadly, the player is out of town and will not be back to the casino by Friday. He tells a friend to collect it for him and gives him his card and PIN. The friend collects it and cashes out $500 from the free play. The casino is now out $500, how are they not harmed? I think casino could claim this to be fraud or theft.

I would love to here how Bob N. would address this.

The reason the players have for not showing up is inconsequential. Using my own example, the players may not have been able to go because they had work that day or they have kids out of school or they were just plain lazy and said to someone to go use their card. Whatever the reason, there is no difference to the casino bottom line if the players physically came and used their free-play and left or they handed it to a proxy who came, used the free-play and left.

As for Bob N, he represents people who have been back-roomed for this, period. There are no extenuating reasons why it is legal versus illegal aside from one and one only, and that is whether the free-play and cards were being used with permission of the card holders.

As for trying to stretch interpretations of the law, Bob relates in his book, The Law for Gamblers which I reviewed here https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/26069-the-law-for-gamblers/ how a casino accused a card counter of cheating because there is a statute that makes it a crime for players who can see information not available to other players - the DA tried to say that because the card counter sat at third base, he was privy to information the player at 1st base was not because he saw the face up cards of 1st and 2nd base.

Bob destroyed that legal argument but it does show that there are overzealous prosecutors. Your argument above about the casino losing money if a player is on vacation reminds me of the 3rd base argument above.

I suppose I can state here that I was backroomed for use of multiple players cards and Bob is representing me so this is not guesswork or supposition on my part.

The case is ongoing so can't talk about it. The use of multiple cards is known by both sides and readily admitted by myself in the complaint for damages so not giving any sensitive info up with that but as no crime was committed by myself, the backrooming was illegal and that is the basis of my suit.

Quote: DRich

Cash value and value are completely different. If you take a family picture from someone it might not have cash value but it is still considered theft.

My point is if that it is okay to do, just get permission from the casino and there won't be any doubt.

While I'm at it i'll ask if it's ok to hole card and count cards to.

Obviously in most cases the casinos don't really want you to use other people's card unless they are you're significant other, however it shouldn't be a legal issue if that person gave you the card to use. It's no different than letting someone use my CVS or walgreens rewards card when they shop to get a discount and earn me some reward points.

Quote: AxelWolf

While I'm at it i'll ask if it's ok to hole card and count cards to.

Obviously in most cases the casinos don't really want you to use other people's card unless they are you're significant other, however it shouldn't be a legal issue if that person gave you the card to use. It's no different than letting someone use my CVS or walgreens rewards card when they shop to get a discount and earn me some reward points.

I think you know I have no problem with hole carding and counting and I persnnally don't care if people collect free play for others.

Quote: darkoz

I suppose I can state here that I was backroomed for use of multiple players cards and Bob is representing me so this is not guesswork or supposition on my part.

The case is ongoing so can't talk about it. The use of multiple cards is known by both sides and readily admitted by myself in the complaint for damages so not giving any sensitive info up with that but as no crime was committed by myself, the backrooming was illegal and that is the basis of my suit.

Did this happen in Nevada or on the east coast? It sounds like PA or N.J.

Quote: darkoz

I suppose I can state here that I was backroomed for use of multiple players cards and Bob is representing me so this is not guesswork or supposition on my part.

The case is ongoing so can't talk about it. The use of multiple cards is known by both sides and readily admitted by myself in the complaint for damages so not giving any sensitive info up with that but as no crime was committed by myself, the backrooming was illegal and that is the basis of my suit.

This is interesting. I presume you and your lawyer have checked with the Gaming Commission and I assume their law is silent on this matter. Why you want to spend money on lawyers and not just walk away would be my first question. You could win and be awarded $1 in damages and bear your own legal cost is something your lawyer must have warn you.
If the gaming commission is silent on this then it becomes a common law issue. You are in private property and they set their rules and regulations which you abide to when you enter the casino. If the casino suspect any of their rules have been violated they have the right to question you. Playing with other persons card and having multiple cards must be a red flag in any casino. Backrooming is not unusual in such instances as they need some convenient place to question you.
Just like the department store have a right to question you in some backroom if they suspect you of shoplifting. So much for my guesses here for whatever it is worth.

On a related note, Bob Nersesian said on GWAE this week that free play may not have cash value but does have monetary value.

This is reason number one why I never worked as a lawyer after school

I have sat face to face with a current assistant DA and asked this question and was told no it's not against the law

The casino can go to a different da and they can think it is. Proving it is another issue but the casino can easily persuade the right person to bring a case.
It's all subjective to some extent- did oj kill Nicole? Most likely
Should he have gotten 15 years in jail for a marginal at best KIDNAPPING case/ clearly most people know it was payback


So much of law is persuasion and not black and white that it's frustrating

Quote: Deck007

This is interesting. I presume you and your lawyer have checked with the Gaming Commission and I assume their law is silent on this matter. Why you want to spend money on lawyers and not just walk away would be my first question. You could win and be awarded $1 in damages and bear your own legal cost is something your lawyer must have warn you.
If the gaming commission is silent on this then it becomes a common law issue. You are in private property and they set their rules and regulations which you abide to when you enter the casino. If the casino suspect any of their rules have been violated they have the right to question you. Playing with other persons card and having multiple cards must be a red flag in any casino. Backrooming is not unusual in such instances as they need some convenient place to question you.
Just like the department store have a right to question you in some backroom if they suspect you of shoplifting. So much for my guesses here for whatever it is worth.

It falls under common law principles. Read Bob's book.

I am being represented on contingency. It is the attorneys who are taking the gamble here, not me.

Any time you risk money you are gambling and that is what we all do. The odds are actually in my favor based on past civil suits and considering my risk to reward ratio is quite small. You would be an idiot not to sue.

However, bottom line is this is not a frivolous case. It is based on legal parameters that have been established in many past instances and venues.

Your comparison to shoplifting is totally erroneous, like trying to compare card counting to adding extra chips to a finished bet. One is legal, the other is not.

A better comparison is if you are in a department store and they have a buy one get one free Turkey special limited to one per customer. After you purchase one turkey and get one free, you come back later with your neighbors shoppers card and buy another turkey and get one free, and security now surrounds you and takes you to a back room claiming you stole the free turkey because it was limited to one per customer.

Quote: darkoz

It falls under common law principles. Read Bob's book.

I am being represented on contingency. It is the attorneys who are taking the gamble here, not me.

Any time you risk money you are gambling and that is what we all do. The odds are actually in my favor based on past civil suits and considering my risk to reward ratio is quite small. You would be an idiot not to sue.

However, bottom line is this is not a frivolous case. It is based on legal parameters that have been established in many past instances and venues.

Your comparison to shoplifting is totally erroneous, like trying to compare card counting to adding extra chips to a finished bet. One is legal, the other is not.

A better comparison is if you are in a department store and they have a buy one get one free Turkey special limited to one per customer. After you purchase one turkey and get one free, you come back later with your neighbors shoppers card and buy another turkey and get one free, and security now surrounds you and takes you to a back room claiming you stole the free turkey because it was limited to one per customer.

I was right about the common law.
For one of the most famous lawyers and probably one of the highest paid lawyer to take your case on a contingency basis? And an iffy case at that, in your own words "this is not a frivolous case". There must be something more to this.
If you add an extra chip to a finished bet the gaming commission may sent you to jail.
Buying turkey in a supermarket using other persons card it is not only legal. They encourage customers to do that.
Your case is not only about using other people's card but using multiple cards. You not only violate the casino rules but you are a serial violator. Pardon my language.

Quote: Deck007

I was right about the common law.
For one of the most famous lawyers and probably one of the highest paid lawyer to take your case on a contingency basis? And an iffy case at that, in your own words "this is not a frivolous case". There must be something more to this.
If you add an extra chip to a finished bet the gaming commission may sent you to jail.
Buying turkey in a supermarket using other persons card it is not only legal. They encourage customers to do that.
Your case is not only about using other people's card but using multiple cards. You not only violate the casino rules but you are a serial violator. Pardon my language.

I don't know why you think it is "iffy". If that is your legal opinion, have you been trained in law?

My attorneys do not consider it iffy and took the case on contingency. I guess you are angry that I am not endangering large amounts of my own capital to pursue this case. Some sort of justice in your thinking isn't connecting.

As for using multiple players cards, you are correct. How is that for you? I not only got caught using another players card but several of them at the same time.

It is all openly admitted to in the lawsuit.

Using one or multiple cards - not illegal.

Being represented and have full suit ongoing.

Seems to get your goat up, doesn't it. But law is what matters here, not your opinion.

I don't have a dog in this fight and always root for the player against the house, but it seems to me a case could be made that using someone else's card to obtain benefits that person earned and you didn't could be fraud.
In any event, I've never stayed at a a Holiday Inn so let me finish by wishing you luck. Please keep us informed.

Quote: darkoz

I don't know why you think it is "iffy". If that is your legal opinion, have you been trained in law?

My attorneys do not consider it iffy and took the case on contingency. I guess you are angry that I am not endangering large amounts of my own capital to pursue this case. Some sort of justice in your thinking isn't connecting.

As for using multiple players cards, you are correct. How is that for you? I not only got caught using another players card but several of them at the same time.

It is all openly admitted to in the lawsuit.

Using one or multiple cards - not illegal.

Being represented and have full suit ongoing.

Seems to get your goat up, doesn't it. But law is what matters here, not your opinion.

My take on this being an iffy case is based on your statement and assurance that "this is not a frivolous case". Good luck to you and your lawyer.
Lawyers will take on any case if they think they can make a buck anywhere.
The point you are missing is not whether it is legal or not or not illegal as you said.
Legality plays no part here.
It is a matter of violating the rules of a private property and the redress available to the property owner.
Do you agree that the private property can exercise their right to act against any of their rules violations.
Same example if I come to your house and pee on your floor you have the right to throw me out.

Quote: Deck007

My take on this being an iffy case is based on your statement and assurance that "this is not a frivolous case". Good luck to you and your lawyer.
Lawyers will take on any case if they think they can make a buck anywhere.
The point you are missing is not whether it is legal or not or not illegal as you said.
Legality plays no part here.
It is a matter of violating the rules of a private property and the redress available to the property owner.
Do you agree that the private property can exercise their right to act against any of their rules violations.
Same example if I come to your house and pee on your floor you have the right to throw me out.

Okay, lets use your example of peeing on my floor.

After you pee on my floor, you say you are leaving my house.

I and several of my buddies surround you and refuse to let you leave through the front door and insist you come to my basement.

There I force you to empty your pockets and go through your belongings. After searching through your stuff and refusing to let you leave, I let you go without calling the police.

So, tell me, is that a citizens arrest or kidnapping and invasion of your privacy? Did I have the right to hold you hostage in my basement because you peed on my floor?

Quote: billryan

I don't have a dog in this fight and always root for the player against the house, but it seems to me a case could be made that using someone else's card to obtain benefits that person earned and you didn't could be fraud.
In any event, I've never stayed at a a Holiday Inn so let me finish by wishing you luck. Please keep us informed.

Bill, lets say the casino offered you a free toaster oven based on your play. You earned it.

You go to the casino and pick it up and then give it to your neighbor. Did you commit fraud because someone else has the benefit you earned?

Now, second scenario. Same deal only since you are giving it to your neighbor, you tell him to go and get the toaster himself using your card.

Has fraud suddenly been committed because you didn't show up yourself to give him the toaster? Has the bottom line to the casino changed in any way?

Quote: darkoz

Okay, lets use your example of peeing on my floor.

After you pee on my floor, you say you are leaving my house.

I and several of my buddies surround you and refuse to let you leave through the front door and insist you come to my basement.

There I force you to empty your pockets and go through your belongings. After searching through your stuff and refusing to let you leave, I let you go without calling the police.

So, tell me, is that a citizens arrest or kidnapping and invasion of your privacy? Did I have the right to hold you hostage in my basement because you peed on my floor?

It is non of the above.
I don't know how long we want to go on with this. This will be my last posting here.
In your case specifically you have been suspected of misusing their casino players card.
They have the right to take you to some place to question you, Backroom you said.
They have the right to ask you to empty your pocket for identification or any other reason.

"So, tell me, is that a citizens arrest or kidnapping and invasion of your privacy?" None of this happen.
" Did I have the right to hold you hostage in my basement......" It did not happen, you are not a hostage in the dictionary meaning of this word.

Quote: darkoz

Has the bottom line to the casino changed in any way?

Absolutely. The casino isn't giving you a toaster for no reason. They're doing it to lure you into the casino, not your neighbor. If they wanted your neighbor there they'd offer him the toaster instead. The casino has decided, rightly or wrongly, that your expected loss on your expected playthrough on that trip makes it worth their while to offer you a toaster. They haven't decided that about your neighbor, hence no toaster for him. So I would argue that yes, the casino is harmed fiscally by you giving your card to your neighbor to claim the toaster.

Quote: darkoz

Bill, lets say the casino offered you a free toaster oven based on your play. You earned it.

You go to the casino and pick it up and then give it to your neighbor. Did you commit fraud because someone else has the benefit you earned?

Now, second scenario. Same deal only since you are giving it to your neighbor, you tell him to go and get the toaster himself using your card.

Has fraud suddenly been committed because you didn't show up yourself to give him the toaster? Has the bottom line to the casino changed in any way?

I don't want to argue with you, so I simply going to say your argument doesn't convince me. As I said before, best of luck.

Here is the definition of false imprisonment for Deck who apparently thinks casinos have the right to restrain people who commit no crime (or who thinks using another players card is a crime, which it is not.)

http://falseimprisonment.uslegal.com/civil-actions-for-false-imprisonment/

BTW, Deck, you don't live in America if I am correct, you don't understand law here even if you do.

Quote: billryan

I don't want to argue with you, so I simply going to say your argument doesn't convince me. As I said before, best of luck.

I can see the conversation when a relative comes to your house 20 years after you won the toaster.

relative: Wow, great toaster. I need one.

Bill: well, I would give this one to you but I don't want to defraud the casino. They gave it to me and it's non-transferable.

Quote: GWAE

Last week I used an elevator at my local casino for the first time. There were 3 signs and one of the said something like the person that spins is the owner of the win. That leads me to believe that even if you are using another person's card they could.nit withhold the winnings. Now if you were on the free play that may be different. I could also see where they pay you and then 86.

On w2g forms you have to swear nobody else is entitled to the money won. If someone else is entitled to all the money, the second party should be able to get the money. If it was Meadows, I'm sure like all their advertising, totally fos. Excuse me while I knock over grandma to get me some quarter and higher 6/5 job and ddb please. I can't believe they have so many fooled thinking the Meadows is a loose casino.

Quote: sabre

Absolutely. The casino isn't giving you a toaster for no reason. They're doing it to lure you into the casino, not your neighbor. If they wanted your neighbor there they'd offer him the toaster instead. The casino has decided, rightly or wrongly, that your expected loss on your expected playthrough on that trip makes it worth their while to offer you a toaster. They haven't decided that about your neighbor, hence no toaster for him. So I would argue that yes, the casino is harmed fiscally by you giving your card to your neighbor to claim the toaster.

You are correct about the purpose of handing out the toaster but you are confusing expectation with consumer choice.

Lets give a different scenario.

The casino is giving a toaster but I don't want it. My friend says he really needs one and I figure it will make a great present.

Since they won't give the toaster without proper ID, I travel with my friend and collect the toaster using my own players card. Soon as we leave the casino, I hand it to him. I do zero coin-in.

How is the bottom line to the casino different than if I just gave it to my friend and had him go get it himself?

Quote: billryan

I don't have a dog in this fight and always root for the player against the house, but it seems to me a case could be made that using someone else's card to obtain benefits that person earned and you didn't could be fraud.
In any event, I've never stayed at a a Holiday Inn so let me finish by wishing you luck. Please keep us informed.

What makes you think HE didn't earn them?

Persons accused of shoplifting or using a stolen identity via any type of payment method can and most likely WILL be detained by employees of that establishment if something... and the key words here are [occurring on Private Property] potentially illegal or against the property owners terms of use/service etc e.g. peeing in aisle 3 or lifting a candy bar.

This is to ensure safety and this may be a stretch, but to establish probable cause to involve law enforcement as well. Honestly so many grfiters, addicts and thieves are out to cheat players and casinos 24/7/365 is it that unfathomable to see reasons why escorting potential felons to a private area to occurs?

When you walk into a casino you submit to the owners rules, period. The second you step foot into a private establishment or property you agree and consent to any and all terms of the owner, which may and usually does include a provision that you can and will be searched for any reason at any time if the owner demands.

Personally i don't see any sort of issue with what the casino did in that hypothetical situation you described especially if it was to ensure no theft or fraud was being committed ( was anything actually taken off your own property?? I'm excluding those cards which are property of the casino itself and subject to forfeiture for any reason on demand ;)

Lastly the person divulging WAY too much TMI, in a public forum no less, had better ensure any comment whatsoever doesn't blow the case for absolutly no reason but to prove what they believe is correct [no such thing btw law is interpreted and not always rigid as most believe]). I find it funny that people ask questions of random people's opinions and then will just stick to what they think is right regardless and even resort to name calling or worse when people offer an answer. Why ask a question if you yourself already think you know it all?

After reading this link which may vary state to state i would like to point out the following regarding false imprisonment/arrest:
...
False arrest is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another consisting of detention without sufficient legal authority.  
...
This is where law can be "grey" to allow interpretation and honestly its fairly hypocritical

First is a definition written into the "law" in that link:

The principal element of damages in an action for false imprisonment is the loss of freedom

Then out of nowhere a little later on.. the text provides a completely opposite view on their own definition:

However, it is to be noted that a mere loss of freedom will not constitute false imprisonment[xv].

Isn't legalese fun to actually examine?? instead of just finding a bit of text that suits one's own arguments it may be in that person's best interest to ensure the other party has little room for a strong counter argument...

^^^also remember you [may very likely] consent to search and seizure of your person and/or your personal property (casino cards are casino property, it is printed on the card OR the contract you entered into when you signed your name to a bunch of tiny words in that LEGALLY binding contract for the privilege to use their property.)
...
Similarly, an officer who arrests a person without a warrant is liable for false imprisonment by detaining the prisoner an unreasonable time[vi].

^^^ how long was this alleged detainment? We talking enough time to ensure no wrongdoing was occurring with the casinos property (card and or slot/table included) or we talking hours on end? These will be the thoughts of the jury or judge, be sure to think as the neutral party..a jury has absolutely zero to gain from being forced to hear a pity party and most probably dont even want to be there, let alone care.
...
The presence of probable cause for imprisonment is a DEFENSE if it constreasonaREASONABLE grounds for acting in defense of PROPERTY or making an arrest without a warrant. 
...
I will wish anyone luck in PROVING beyond any reasonable doubt the following:

In the case of false imprisonment, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the false arrest.  The plaintiff in a false imprisonment action must prove that the defendant proximately caused the injuries for which the plaintiff seeks damages[xxii].

Lastly i would just like to ask if anyone reading this post can prove any injury if [ note im just going off the [hypothetical] TMI posts of [hypothetical] pending legal cases presented in this public forum] ***DISCLAIMER ****i am only offering my own opinions,these opinions shall not be construed as providing any legal counsel or ligating for or against any hypothetical parties***

If you're asked (kindly and discreetly escorted by any staff member [note i can only assume that no other person in or around the TMI party understood the purpose or intent of the defending party escorting TMI (was your reputation damaged if no one sees or hears the accusations/searching of TMIs person? Cam me tal anguish be proved? Remember the accuser has this burden to prove... what evidence is there to accuse a property owner if done in a private location? IMO publically stating these actions to the world would just show that the accuser is damaging their own reputation...and it is not unreasonable or unheard of to expect a counter suit by the defense... good luck

Why is ownership of a gift to the giftee being used in this argument? The casino player's card is SOLELY and undeniably property of THE CASINO it is not a gift nor is it transferrable (READ YOUR CARD instead of assuming you own something you do not just because it has your name printed on it... that card is analogous to a driver's license... don't believe me? Ask any human alive with one that has been revoked and they'll tell you exactly who owns it)

In the argument as to that toaster, it's considered a gift and a gift becomes fully and solely owned by the giftee to which they have every right to then do with it as they please. Kinda like how people are advised to NEVER gift expensive e.g. engagement rings on the giftees birthday or any sort of holiday... however in the ring example two people are assumed to be entering into a partnership, the ring is the giftors (buyers) property until marriage is made legally s more of a promise than a gift... if the engagement (promise) is broken before being made official the giftor can and most likely win back his[or her...] poor investment.
Heres the kicker though, the giftee can claim ownership of that ring if it can be ASSUMED, by virtue of a special occasion like Christmas/ valentine's day or birthday, that was a GIFT and not solely a promise ring.

Legality aside, as evidenced in the oj case (criminally not guilty; civilly found liable and made bankrupt) a great argument, either for or against a defendant, is what really matters in a civil liability case the law in that sense merely frames the guidelines for argument/counter and punishment/ counter punishment.

If this hypothetical person in this hypothetical case is not aware...your rep may not be charging you, but time off work, travel expenses (both this persons AND also the defendents every travel, court cost and lawyer fees become the ACCUSERS liability (if hypothetical defendant is found not liable). Sometimes it's better to walk off with a little hurt pride (boo hooooo) than to not only lose their precious lifetime but also everything they own because pf hwurt fweewings :'-( but ofc no rep you seek will willfully divulge this information to their client; that sure as hell would scare me off and the rep wouldn't be in business too long scaring off potential paychecks would they?

The rep has little to lose on contingency arguing against a defendent with billions, a cheap para legal team does the legwork the big guys just make appearances when needed for the court stage... flip side for that rep im sure 75% of potential millions (lolol) justifies walking from courtroom A7 down the hall to B3 for a couple hours every now and then.