BetMGM rakes the pot as court deals final blow in Antar lawsuit
The long-running legal showdown between BetMGM and Sam A. Antar, the nephew of the infamous electronics fraudster “Crazy Eddie,” has finally concluded. And this time, the house didn’t just win. It raked the pot.
After years of headlines, allegations and legal jabs, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has upheld a previous dismissal of Antar’s lawsuit. The court ruled that BetMGM bears no legal responsibility for his gambling losses, despite his claims of addiction and coercion by VIP hosts.
The ruling reshuffles the deck for similar lawsuits creeping across the U.S., leaving little room for a winning hand. It also reinforces the tightrope that gambling regulation continues to walk in the digital era.
Antar placed his bet on justice
Sam A. Antar originally sued BetMGM after claiming he lost over $24 million through over 100,000 online bets between June 2019 and January 2020.
In his suit, Antar claimed the operator’s VIP reward programme stacked the deck against him, exploiting his addiction with calculated offers. He claimed that text messages from BetMGM hosts offering bonuses, credits and deposit matches kept him trapped in a vicious cycle.
This case wasn’t Antar’s first brush with chaos. His uncle, Eddie Antar, masterminded one of the most notorious retail frauds in American history. SiGMA News previously explored the chaotic legacy of the Crazy Eddie empire in its feature on the BetMGM–Antar saga, chronicling a history of financial controversy and public downfall linked to the Antar name.
The court calls Antar’s bluff
In its April 29 opinion, the Court of Appeals confirmed that the New Jersey Casino Control Act overrides the Consumer Fraud Act in cases like this. That means BetMGM and other licensed operators are under no legal obligation to prevent at-risk individuals from gambling.
The judges stated clearly,
“Antar was fully aware that the text messages from his VIP hosts offering bonuses, credits, and deposit matches were exactly as the hosts represented: enticements to continue to gamble.”
They also rejected the idea that BetMGM misled Antar about the nature of gambling itself. The judges concluded that consistent losses aren’t evidence of deception, but rather a known risk baked into the product’s design. Losing big doesn’t make the game broken. That was the court’s call.
In simple terms, the court’s message was blunt. Gambling is gambling. The house never promises a fairytale. The odds always favour the house, and players participate willingly.
A ruling that reshuffles the deck
This ruling lands at a time when BetMGM is enjoying commercial tailwinds. This week, the operator reported a 34 percent rise in Q1 net revenue, fuelled by strong performance in iGaming and sports betting.
But while the revenue climbs, so does scrutiny. Lawsuits targeting VIP schemes and loyalty programmes are multiplying across the U.S. Similar actions are now aimed at DraftKings and FanDuel, raising concerns about where ethical promotion ends and exploitation begins.
Despite the ruling, Antar’s legal team has vowed to keep fighting. Attorney Matthew Litt has suggested that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is still on the table.
For now, though, the precedent is set. In the words of Circuit Judge Jane Roth, the New Jersey legislature has “balanced the protection of gambling patrons and the protection of the financial viability of the casino industry.”
The river card on responsibility
The final opinion from the Third Circuit can be read in full via the court’s . The ruling deals a cold hand: casinos may deal the cards, but they’re not holding the hand when the chips fall, even when a player is visibly spiralling.
In an exclusive statement to SiGMA News, Sam A. Antar criticised the ruling and vowed to continue his campaign for change.
“The Third Circuit’s decision to uphold the District Court’s ruling is a clear failure to recognise the severity of this case. Justice was not served, and this ruling shows a blatant disregard for the countless individuals and families harmed by gambling addiction and the unchecked power of online casinos.”
Antar also referenced the many people who have contacted him through his campaign platform, pledging continued support for others facing similar issues.
“To everyone who has contacted me through my website, BetMGMLawsuit—thank you. Your stories matter, and I will not stop fighting for accountability. If you’ve had problems with an online casino, I will do everything in my power to support you and make your voice heard.”
His message closed with a warning that this is not the end:
“The system has failed us, but I will keep pushing back. And to the producers who have reached out to tell my story—it’s time.”
This ruling may bring some relief to operators. But it also casts a long shadow over debates about the duty of care, ethics in marketing, and what responsible gambling really means in practice.
While BetMGM walks away with its reputation intact, the conversation about what operators owe to their most vulnerable players is far from over. Because if the courts won’t call time on the industry’s greyer tactics, then maybe it’s time players learned the odds weren’t ever really in their favour and the house never deals with conscience.
