A Pennsylvania woman has filed suit against slot manufacturer AGS to recover a $100,000 jackpot she claims she won while playing the game Capital Gains on her smartphone. The woman says the game displayed a $100,000 jackpot—she filed the screenshot as part of the suit—but the manufacturer refused to pay, citing a “bug” in the product.
According to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, there have been other complaints filed in connection with the game, all from players claiming they won more than they were actually paid.
The player in this case, Lisa Piluso of Yardley, Pennsylvania, was advised by the DGE after its investigation that AGS “ha discovered an issue/bug with within the game” that failed to clear bonus symbols from previous rounds from the player’s screen. “This error caused the patron(s) to believe that their bonus round winnings were higher than the actual winnings,” Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Russo-Belles wrote to Piluso after the investigation.
In response to a question from the Associated Press, the attorney general’s office revealed that it had fined AGS $1,000 for failing to ensure the game was functioning properly.
Piluso filed suit in U.S. District Court in Camden accusing the company of consumer fraud.
“I’m an experienced online player, and I was shocked when AGS officials, including the company president, told me they weren’t going to pay, even when I showed them the screenshot that I made of the $100,000 jackpot,” she said in a statement to the AP issued through her lawyer, Paul D’Amato.
“They said I actually won about $300, but that they then offered me $1,000, saying we were ‘nice people,’” Piluso said. “How many other players have been in the same situation but agreed to settle for a fraction of their winnings after being told they, too, were ‘nice people?’”
AGS Chief Marketing Officer Julia Boguslawski responded in an email to the AP that there are no grounds to pay the woman the $100,000 jackpot.
“We have worked with the Division of Gaming Enforcement to investigate the cause of the event and in turn have taken corrective action,” she wrote. “Although Ms. Piluso may disagree with the outcome of that administrative process, there is no precedent for her demand, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in court, if necessary.”
