|
Problem gamblers hit Ontario casinos with $3.5B lawsuit
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jem_hadar |
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 |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
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. |
|
|
| exstasie |
Won't matter...
Even if they do win the lawsuit...all of that money is going to go right back to OLG...
|
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
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. |
|
|
| UmmiE |
| New ray of light for meth and crack users.....Just hang in their guys. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| 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. |
|
|
| Orko |
| 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. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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? |
|
|
| Orko |
| 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. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| 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. |
|
|
| Intangible |
| Im suing LCBO for my drinking problem |
|
|
|
|
