Professor Joseph Kelly explores the history of compulsive gamblers seeking damages from operators over alleged player protection negligence.

Australian gambling addicts have shown themselves ready to litigate against casinos that allow them to gamble when they have full knowledge of the player’s problem but the establishment of a ‘duty of care’ in Australia, and elsewhere, is still elusive.

US casinos face liabilities across a range of litigations from self-exclusion gone awry to jackpots won in error, but few areas hold such uncertainty as sexual harassment in the workplace. In cases brought over both customer and co-worker harassment, and over inappropriate dress codes, operators find little solid ground.

In the final part of a review of the 3rd Annual Legal and Business Guide to Gaming in Canada Conference, held in Toronto at the end of February, Christine Mingie, barrister and solicitor with Vancouver law firm Lang Michener, analyses debate surrounding self-exclusion programmes and the duty of care owed by Canadian casinos to their customers.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision to allow solicitors 14.5 percent of an out of court settlement between the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLGC) and a problem gambler could provide an added incentive for Canadian lawyers to take on similar cases in which no firm legal precedent has been set.

In June Gamblingcompliance.com identified a number of key pending Australian cases which would clarify the position as to whether, and in what circumstances a casino will owe a duty of care to a problem gambler. One of those cases raised has now been heard and whilst the status quo of the law remains, it appears the case will strengthen the position of operators defending such claims.

In formulating their self-exclusion policies and procedures, operators in Great Britain should consider the risk that self-excluded gamblers could successfully sue operators if they are subsequently allowed to bet.

The Federal Court of Justice has clarified an earlier court ruling which established that casinos have a contractual obligation to take ‘reasonable efforts’ to ensure that slot machine players are not self-excluded gamblers, who may be reimbursed with their losses if casinos fail to fulfil this duty. However, the Federal Court has said that compensation is not due in cases that precede the establishment of the casinos’ duty of care in the December 2005 ruling.

A lawyer who became a gambling addict has launched a $20m lawsuit against a string of casinos in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, claiming they should have stopped her betting. But, going beyond its claims that the operators were negligent in their duty of care, the complaint also alleges a conspiracy of interstate marketing activities designed to induce and mislead her.

A High Court case brought by a problem gambler against bookmaker William Hill is set to draw widespread media attention to self exclusion agreements, as well as compelling gambling operators to formulate more comprehensive exclusion policies and procedures, as per their obligations under the 2005 Gambling Act.