Problem gamblers hit Ontario casinos with $3.5B lawsuit

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Problem gamblers hit Ontario casinos with $3.5B lawsuit
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Posted by Jem_hadar on Jun-11-2008 15:47:

Problem gamblers hit Ontario casinos with $3.5B lawsuit

What do yall think of this?

So gambling addicts are SUING the OLG for not doing enough to stop/prevent them (these addicts) after they had signed up for a 'self-exclusion' program, which apparently allowed for these individuals to be banned (ban themselves) from casinos.

Wow. Huh... Interesting...

I need to read more on this matter I think before I out-rightly dismiss this lawsuit as completely ridiculous. Because of this program, did the casinos (OLG) have a duty of care to do more?

My gut is just roll my eyes and be disgusted by the fact that gambling addicts are trying to blame the government for their problem, to pass the buck from their OWN responsibility for themslves... ...

but there may be a valid issue here.

Gonna need to read more.

quote:

Problem gamblers hit Ontario casinos with $3.5B lawsuit

Last Updated: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 | 8:01 AM ET

A $3.5-billion class action lawsuit has been launched on behalf of thousands of addicted gamblers who say they asked to be barred from Ontario's casinos, but were still allowed in.

The suit was filed against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation on Tuesday in Toronto, claiming that the corporation did not do enough for those who signed up for "self-exclusion," a program that allows people to have themselves banned from casinos so that they can curb their ruinous gambling habits.

Those who sign up for the program are photographed and registered, and their information is stored in binders at every provincial casino. If they are caught trying to enter a casino, they can be arrested for trespassing.

But gamblers who spoke with CBC News on condition of anonymity said the program doesn't work. One woman said she registered for the program, but her gambling addiction led her back to a casino soon after.

"I walked through, no one looked at me," she said. "I kept gambling for the next couple of years."

Lawyers say the OLG should be using high-tech systems to catch self-banned gamblers. In the Netherlands, gamblers present photo identification at casinos, and their identification is checked against a computer database, lawyers say.

Lawyer Jerome Morris said the suit is designed to help addicted gamblers who have lost large sums of money, and their families. But he also hopes the suit will bring about changes at casinos across the continent.

"[We hope it sets] a precedent that not only benefits all members, but that will benefit anyone who is subject to the dangers of gaming in North America," he said.

Ontario has settled nine individual lawsuits pertaining to self-exclusion, but has never been hit with a large class-action suit.

The OLG has argued in the past that it is ultimately up to the gamblers themselves to stay away from casinos, although the corporation has expressed interest in obtaining facial recognition technology to improve its screening process.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/20...ng-lawsuit.html

Posted by ChemEnhanced on Jun-11-2008 15:57:

Duty of Care
I would think there is a duty of care for the casinos and the OLG to prevent banned players from entering a casino and gambling. I would suggest there needs to be medical documentation to support that the person actually had a gambling problem before the above duty is owed. That being said, how is the OLG going to enforce such bans when it comes to lotto tickets, scratch tickets and sports betting?

Breach of Duty
If these banned players are still able to enter the casinos and gamble then there may be a breach of duty.

Damages Due to Breach
The damages for something like this could range from simple economic loss to psychological injuries.

Defences
The main defence the OLG would have is that they have taken reasonable and prudent actions to prevent these individuals from gambling. Every casino has a book of the individuals on the list.

Posted by exstasie on Jun-11-2008 16:03:

Won't matter...

Even if they do win the lawsuit...all of that money is going to go right back to OLG...

Posted by ChemEnhanced on Jun-11-2008 16:09:

I hope they do win...it will open a door for every addiction...people will request there be banned lists for everything that they can put themselves on (ie smoking banned list, drinking banned list, fast food banned list). When they are able to still smoke their cigarettes, drink their beer, and eat their burgers then they can sue someone for allowing them to do it.

I would think the arguement will have to be made that gambling isn't an addiction but a disease and therefore the people did not have a choice...they were compelled to gamble because of the disease.

Posted by UmmiE on Jun-11-2008 16:15:

New ray of light for meth and crack users.....Just hang in their guys.

Posted by ChemEnhanced on Jun-11-2008 16:27:

quote:
Originally posted by UmmiE
New ray of light for meth and crack users.....Just hang in their guys.

being those are illegal drugs I don't think the same process would work....someone signing up for a banned list for illegal drugs would work the same way unless you can get all the dealers together and provide them with a book of banned users.

Posted by Orko on Jun-11-2008 17:10:

quote:
Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
Defences
The main defence the OLG would have is that they have taken reasonable and prudent actions to prevent these individuals from gambling. Every casino has a book of the individuals on the list.

But, you better believe if these people were on the list of banned gamblers because they count cards, or win against the house, they would not have let them in. Why would the casino bother rejecting people they know they can take money from.

Posted by ChemEnhanced on Jun-11-2008 17:17:

quote:
Originally posted by Orko
But, you better believe if these people were on the list of banned gamblers because they count cards, or win against the house, they would not have let them in. Why would the casino bother rejecting people they know they can take money from.

You have to remember that the casinos are not privately owned businesses like in Vegas. The people on the banned list have put themselves on the list. Its my understanding that the OLG provides this self banning list and therefore they would have a responsibility to make sure those people do not enter the casino. The OLG also has a responsibility in the running of these casinos.

Posted by Abercrombie on Jun-11-2008 17:18:

So let me understand this...

So these problem gamblers are betting a small fortune of their money, on lawyers to win with legal case, for a greater return on their their bet?

Posted by Orko on Jun-11-2008 17:20:

quote:
Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
You have to remember that the casinos are not privately owned businesses like in Vegas. The people on the banned list have put themselves on the list. Its my understanding that the OLG provides this self banning list and therefore they would have a responsibility to make sure those people do not enter the casino. The OLG also has a responsibility in the running of these casinos.

Just another case of citizens asking the government to baby sit them.

Posted by ChemEnhanced on Jun-11-2008 17:26:

quote:
Originally posted by Orko
Just another case of citizens asking the government to baby sit them.

For the most part yes....although the government did put the responsibility on themselves by providing this banning service. What they should do is scrap the whole service and just provide a gambling help line, which they already provide.

Posted by Intangible on Jun-11-2008 17:41:

Im suing LCBO for my drinking problem

Posted by ChemEnhanced on Jun-11-2008 17:44:

quote:
Originally posted by Intangible
Im suing LCBO for my drinking problem

I'll put you on the Banned List

Posted by Jem_hadar on Jun-11-2008 17:56:

I want to sue Chapters and Amazon.ca for making me read to much by offering me too many tempting choices in novels that I've been reading when I should be working at my job that has thus resulted in my getting fired.

Yea, ok.

Posted by Rodrico on Jun-11-2008 18:25:

wtf, what a bunch of pussies, deal with your gambling addiction like a real man and steal off your loved ones.

Posted by Cosmic Fur on Jun-11-2008 18:43:

quote:
Originally posted by Abercrombie
So let me understand this...

So these problem gamblers are betting a small fortune of their money, on lawyers to win with legal case, for a greater return on their their bet?

hahahha

best post

Posted by Jer on Jun-11-2008 19:54:

quote:
Originally posted by Intangible
Im suing LCBO for my drinking problem

lol, beat me to it.

Absolutely fucking ridiculous!

Posted by The Ear on Jun-11-2008 20:20:

Sounds like they're gambling again with this one.

There is no chance of winning... perhaps they should have pooled the $ they're wasting & bought some lottery tickets. Oh, right...

lol.

Posted by ChemEnhanced on Jun-11-2008 21:05:

quote:
Originally posted by The Ear
Sounds like they're gambling again with this one.

There is no chance of winning... perhaps they should have pooled the $ they're wasting & bought some lottery tickets. Oh, right...

lol.

don't be to sure that they won't win. The OLG owes a duty of care and it wouldn't be a far stretch to find them negligent if these people are still getting into the casino and gambling. It will definately be an interesting case.

I think a key issue will be whether or not gambling addiction can be considered a disease.

Posted by DigiNut on Jun-11-2008 23:06:

I'm suing Hustler for... never mind.

Posted by Jayx1 on Jun-11-2008 23:47:

Its always someone else's fault. Responsibility for your own actions isn't the canadian way i guess.

Posted by MarkT on Jun-12-2008 01:04:

classic case of people not accepting responsibilty at all for their own actions.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect a casino to have enough staff to monitor the premises and watch out for people displaying unusual behaviour that might be indicative of a problem (like gambling at a slot machine for 5 hours straight). no one has a "right" to be there, so if staff thinks a person is displaying symptoms of addiction, they can ask them to leave. just like a bartender can (and is required to) refuse service to someone who appears intoxicated.

To suggest that casinos *ought* to be using high-tech surveillance, photo database, etc. is unreasonable.

We put an onus on bars, liquor stores, etc. to be vigilant and not serve alcohol to people who appear intoxicated...but we don't expect some high-tech detection system to be put in place to ensure that self-proclaimed alcoholics can't buy booze

Posted by ChemEnhanced on Jun-12-2008 02:09:

quote:
Originally posted by MarkT
classic case of people not accepting responsibilty at all for their own actions.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect a casino to have enough staff to monitor the premises and watch out for people displaying unusual behaviour that might be indicative of a problem (like gambling at a slot machine for 5 hours straight). no one has a "right" to be there, so if staff thinks a person is displaying symptoms of addiction, they can ask them to leave. just like a bartender can (and is required to) refuse service to someone who appears intoxicated.

To suggest that casinos *ought* to be using high-tech surveillance, photo database, etc. is unreasonable.

We put an onus on bars, liquor stores, etc. to be vigilant and not serve alcohol to people who appear intoxicated...but we don't expect some high-tech detection system to be put in place to ensure that self-proclaimed alcoholics can't buy booze

although I agree....what needs to be determined is what is reasonable and prudent for the OLG to do. Any casino I have gone to in Ontario has just let me walk in. If you look under age then they check your ID...none of them have checked to see if I was on the self banning list. I don't think the OLG will allow this to go to trial but if it does it could set an interesting precedent.

Posted by magikb on Jun-12-2008 02:11:

You would think that having yourself banned from somewhere that one would not attempt to waste their time travelling to the casino to risk being denied.

Nothing like taking responsibility for your own actions.

Posted by ChemEnhanced on Jun-12-2008 02:14:

quote:
Originally posted by magikb
You would think that having yourself banned from somewhere that one would not attempt to waste their time travelling to the casino to risk being denied.

Nothing like taking responsibility for your own actions.

many people take the risk to smoke a cigarette inside the bar even though they know they might get kicked out....addiction is a hard thing to understand.

Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »