New Jersey Court Denies Early Appeal in BetMGM VIP Contest Dispute, Trial Scheduled for 2026
New Jersey Appeals Court Keeps BetMGM Lawsuit on Track
The New Jersey appeals court recently refused to dismiss a legal dispute involving BetMGM and a customer who alleges the company altered the terms of an online casino promotion without notification. This decision means that the case will proceed to trial, currently scheduled for March 9, 2026, in the New Jersey Superior Court, Atlantic Division.
Summary of the Appeal Decision
BetMGM had requested the appeals court to terminate the lawsuit before it reached a jury, following a similar denial by Superior Court Judge Danielle Walcoff the prior month. However, the appellate panel issued a brief ruling, consisting of only three sentences, rejecting BetMGM’s petition for dismissal at this stage. The court emphasized that the operator retains the right to appeal again after a final judgment is made at trial.
The court highlighted that there is a strong preference against piecemeal litigation reviews and noted that any intermediate trial court rulings can be appealed later as part of a full appeal after the final case resolution.
Disputed Change to Promotion Rules
The complaint was filed by Larry Murk, who alleges that BetMGM improperly handled a month-long contest on its Party Casino platform. Murk claims that BetMGM allowed a high-stakes player to enter the competition 11 days after it started without informing other participants.
Murk reportedly wagered approximately $350,000, carefully strategizing his participation based on promotion rules that rewarded players for total wagers over the month, rather than net winnings. The contest’s grand prize was advertised as $500,000 in casino bonuses plus 100 free spins daily throughout the promotion period.
Midway through the event, a player referenced as “Broker” suddenly appeared atop the leaderboard after placing wagers around $800,000, despite not initially appearing in the contest standings.
Through communications with BetMGM representatives, Murk learned that “Broker” was a VIP customer from a retail casino who believed he was eligible for the online promotion but had not played the required online slot games. Nonetheless, BetMGM counted this player’s activity toward the contest, which Murk argues constituted an unannounced and improper rule change.
Arguments from BetMGM and Plaintiff
BetMGM cited its general terms and conditions, which state the company may suspend, adjust, or remove gaming services at any time and can modify rules by posting updates on the platform. However, Murk counters that no clear notice of changes was published, and it is uncertain whether such provisions appeared within the contest-specific terms.
Deposition evidence suggested general terms applied to the promotion and that contest-specific rules should have been linked for transparency, though it remains unclear if this was done. Murk is pursuing $2.5 million in damages under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act.
The trial will not be overseen by Judge Walcoff but is expected to be reassigned to Judge Benjamin Podolnick due to scheduling conflicts.
