The tribes are notionally “sovereign nations” (or close enough as makes no difference) on their reservations (which is where the casinos are), and they get away with all kinds of things that would be illegal for anyone else that isn’t a government, as they have sovereign immunity.

(Like just ignore contracts as they see fit – which is one reason the reservations are so awful.

Nobody trusts them to pay, so nobody wants to do work for them, unless they waive immunity in the contract.)

Xrlq, then the there’s no way the loss should rest with the casino, since it was in no way able to foresee or prevent the malfunction.

Huh? By that reasoning, there should be no way a consumer could ever sue a store owner over a product defect, except in the rare instance where the store had caused it. It doesn’t work that way for stores; why the hell should it work for casinos?

Casinos must rely on the slot manufacturer and governing gaming authority as to fitness of a slot machine for use. They’re not even allowed to perform tests on the machines.

And that differentiates them from wholesalers and retailers … err … how, exactly?

In short, a casino can no more foresee or prevent a firmware malfunction than the player.

Hogwash. Of course the casino, as a repeat “player” in the industry, has more knowledge then the average player about the manufacturers of the machines they stock. They’re the ones who decide which machines to stock, for chrissakes. Again, they’re just like retailers – except that for some reason you think they should be shielded from the risks any other retailer accepts as a normal cost of doing business.

Further, even if I were to accept your dubious claim that a casino and an individual gambler are equally at the mercy of the big, bad manufacturers, that still wouldn’t justify your steadfast defense of the casinos’ “heads we win, tails you lose” approach to malfunctions. As you yourself admitted, the machines say “Malfunction voids all pays and plays” but we all know that isn’t true; only malfunctions that favor the player are ever voided. If a malfunction had caused Gary Hoffman to lose a bet he should have won rather than vice-versa, the odds are extremely slim he would have even known to suspect there was a problem, and none that the casino would have given him an opportunity to prove it. For all we know, the machine may have been “malfunctioning” all day long, but no one checked until it registered a jackpot.

One final word on slots: not all of them are owned by the casino. More and more, casinos have a shared revenue agreement with the manufacturer. The manufacturer installs a machine for free, and in exchange collects a percentage of the win until the machine is taken out of service.

Oh goody, just when you think the casinos have perfected their racket, it gets even better! Not only do they have odds overwhelmingly in their favor, they face no risks at all beyond the prospect of a percentage of a lower net winnings. Yet, rather than pay out on a jackpot that could cost them only in terms of reduced profits, they were good enough to stand up for their one armed bandit (gee, why on earth would they call them that?!) manufacturing brethren, who were both responsible for creating the original defect and bore all the real risks associated with it. How touching.

It put the machine in, it enticed gamblers to use it, and took their money in accordance with its programmed percentage. If it could not sell a guaranteed “safe” product to a consumer it should not have been selling it in the first place.

No casino can use a gaming device that hasn’t been approved by its Gaming Control Board.

No restaurant can serve a steak that has not been approved by the USDA and no driver can drive a motor vehicle that has not been approved by DOT. That is a threshold question, not a dispositive one. The disposition is reached by looking at relative faults and equities.

Don’t you just hate lawyers?

IGT was offering shared revenue shortly before I started working there (I worked there 2001-2004, now I work for Bally Technologies).

Casinos are not allowed access to the software inside the slot machines — that’s a Gaming Control Board rule, and as far as I know, it’s true across all jurisdictions. Casinos must rely on the slot manufacturer and governing gaming authority as to fitness of a slot machine for use. They’re not even allowed to perform tests on the machines.

In short, a casino can no more foresee or prevent a firmware malfunction than the player.

nk, your statement:

Every casino would have an incentive to install a “malfunctioning” machine which never pays out.

doesn’t reflect reality. No casino can use a gaming device that hasn’t been approved by its Gaming Control Board. There’s no way a casino can put a deliberately malfunctioning device on the floor — it would lose its gaming license if it tried.