BetMGM advancing to Michigan Supreme Court for casino lawsuit
![BetMGM advancing to Michigan Supreme Court for casino lawsuit](https://www.timesofcasino.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/betmgm-advancing-to-michigan-supreme-court-for-casino-lawsuit.webp)
BetMGM has been gaining the limelight due to an unusual incident. A player from Michigan has claimed that BetMGM refused to send them $3.2 million in winnings.
The woman added that the incident took place in June 2021. Jacqueline Davis then proceeded to file a lawsuit against the casino operator. On the other hand, BetMGM claims that a glitch credited the player’s account with a bigger payout.
As one of the best online casinos in the US, BetMGM holds a massive position. That is why the operator has advanced the case to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Davis had previously reported playing the ‘Luck O’ the Roulette’ game. On March 18, the player bet $4.50 and lost. However, before the day ended, Davis had started betting $150 after winning $20,000.
The player stated that it was like living a dream. That is why Davis continued to play for the next six days. According to court documents, the player’s account balances looked like this at the end of every day:
- March 18 – $20,077
- March 19 – $64,286
- March 20 – No bets placed
- March 21 – $488,498
- March 22 – $2,527,300
- March 23 – $3,289,500
Davis had requested to withdraw $100,000 on March 21. BetMGM congratulated the player for winning big the next day and approved the request. However, BetMGM suspended the account after the withdrawal.
The player reported that a representative from BetMGM said that “she wasn’t supposed to win.” Davis added that BetMGM offered a sum of $23,000, or $75,000 in BetMGM credits.
The condition for sharing these offers was that Davis would not discuss the “glitch” with anyone. After the amount was purportedly denied, Davis resolved to pursue numerous court cases.
According to BetMGM, the platform had mistakenly multiplied the player’s winnings. Now, Davis is seeking the remaining $3.18 million plus attorney expenses.