A New Jersey man has filed a lawsuit against BetMGM, alleging the sports betting and online casino operator altered the rules of a promotional contest after it began, unfairly costing him a top prize.
The complaint alleges that BetMGM manually adjusted the leaderboard standings to benefit another player, raising concerns about transparency and consumer protections in online gaming promotions. BetMGM denies wrongdoing, citing its right to modify promotional terms under its existing user agreement.
Larry Murk’s lawsuit claims that BetMGM unfairly altered the rules of a 2021 online slot promotion. The contest, held in May 2021, promised a top prize of $500,000 in casino bonus funds and 100 free spins per day for one month to the player who wagered the most on a designated digital slot game each week.
According to court filings, Murk developed a wagering strategy aimed at securing the top spot, ultimately betting about $1.5 million over the course of the promotion. However, his efforts were upended when BetMGM allegedly added a VIP player, a high roller from the company’s retail location, into the contest midway through as an “act of goodwill.”
Eleven days into the event, Murk, who had been leading the leaderboard, logged in to find his name replaced by a new player identified as “mjbroker11969”, referred to in court documents as “Broker.” The VIP was suddenly listed in first place with roughly $800,000 in wagers, while Murk had played about $350,000 at that stage.
Murk is now suing BetMGM for $2.5 million in damages under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, alleging the company’s actions amounted to deceptive conduct. Attorneys for both parties appeared before a New Jersey Superior Court judge on October 6, with oral arguments scheduled for January 26, 2026.
The lawsuit raises broader questions about responsible gaming practices and fair treatment within the online gambling industry.
At the heart of Larry Murk’s complaint is the claim that BetMGM may have shown preferential treatment to a high-value player, undermining the fairness of a public promotion. If proven, such actions could challenge the integrity of online contests that are meant to be transparent and equally accessible to all participants.
Responsible gaming principles emphasize transparency, fairness, and consumer trust. Allowing late entrants or adjusting contest results for VIP players risks eroding that trust and could prompt greater scrutiny from regulators such as the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE).
The case also highlights the tension between marketing incentives and compliance obligations. While VIP programs are common across casinos and sportsbooks, extending “goodwill” exceptions in promotional competitions may blur ethical lines.
Such practices could be interpreted as favoring high spenders at the expense of average players, contradicting the industry’s stated commitment to responsible gambling and player protection.
As the case progresses, it may serve as a test of how far gaming operators can go in striking a balance between player relationships and fair play standards.
