MGM Resorts International, a prominent gambling company, is challenging allegations of wrongdoing made by Sam Antar, a convicted fraudster from New York City, Your Content has learned.
Antar claims that MGM exploited his gambling addiction by offering cash bonuses to keep him gambling. In response, MGM has filed court papers denying any wrongdoing and characterizing Antar’s accusations as part of his ongoing schemes.
MGM has requested the dismissal of Antar’s lawsuit and argues that the matter should be referred to arbitration, as stipulated in the terms of service agreed upon when Antar opened his online gambling account with the company.
Furthermore, MGM asserts that it has not violated any New Jersey laws.
In its June 9 court filing in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, MGM stated, “Sam Antar is a convicted felon and repeat fraudster who has pled guilty to defrauding numerous individuals out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in false stock investment schemes.”
The company contends that Antar is shifting blame onto BetMGM, falsely accusing them of exploiting his alleged gambling addiction.
MGM has not provided further comments beyond its court filing, despite requests for additional statements. Antar, the nephew of Eddie Antar, the founder of Crazy Eddie electronics stores who defrauded investors of over $74 million, has faced legal troubles in the past.
He served federal prison sentences for fraudulent investment schemes and theft by deception charges.
Antar’s initial lawsuit, filed in September, claimed that MGM incentivized him with bonus cash to discourage him from reporting instances where he was disconnected from the online gambling system, often during favorable playing conditions.
However, his revised lawsuit, filed in May, focuses on what his lawyer Matthew Litt refers to as “the enticement by the casino of a person who was showing signs of being a problem gambler.”
According to Antar’s lawsuit, he wagered $30 million over 100,000 bets in a nine-month period in 2019. However, the lawsuit does not specify the exact amount he lost.
MGM’s response emphasizes that the company did not contribute to or exacerbate Antar’s gambling issue or that of any other individual.
While BetMGM takes problem gambling seriously and offers resources for assistance and self-exclusion options, MGM contends that New Jersey law does not impose a common law duty on casinos to protect problem gamblers from their own actions.
Citing a previous case involving a different individual who sued Atlantic City casinos, MGM maintains that casinos have no obligation to prevent alleged “compulsive gamblers” from engaging in gambling activities.
MGM presents a range of defenses against Antar’s litigation, including the aforementioned case ruling that established the absence of a cognizable claim in the law for similar allegations, according U.S. News.