The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has heard arguments in the first case with potential statewide consequences involving the legality of so-called “skill games” that have proliferated into the tens of thousands at diverse locations around the state.
The manufacturers of the machines claim they are legal because of a dubious skill factor in how the slot-like machines reach results. State officials, as well as casino operators in charge of some 25,000 regulated gaming machines, have claimed the unregulated, untaxed machines are really illegal, unlicensed slot machines that are available to minors in locations as diverse as pizza shops, convenience stores and laundromats.
The case involves machines manufactured by Georgia-based Pace-O-Matic that were seized in Dauphin County in 2019. A county judge held that since there is some skill involved in the outcome of spins, the machines are not subject to regulation by the state Gaming Control Board, and not subject to seizure by the state.
The state Attorney General’s Office appealed that ruling, on the basis of Act 42, a 2017 amendment to the gaming law that defines a slot machine as any device “which, upon insertion of a coin, bill, ticket, token or similar object therein or upon payment of any consideration whatsoever… is available to play or operate, the play or operation of which, whether by reason of skill or application of the element of chance or both, may deliver or entitle the persons playing… to receive cash,” or anything else of value.”
In last week’s arguments, Senior Deputy Attorney General Susan Affronti said that even if skill were involved in the machines’ outcomes, the fast play of the machines would negate the skill factors potentially involved. Players may quickly spin reels like on a standard slot machine in a first phase of the game, turning it on balance into more a game of chance, she argued.
According to a report in US Bets, Capital Vending attorney Matthew Haverstick, who also served as counsel for Pace-O-Matic at a legislative hearing two weeks ago, maintained there are skill elements to both a first phase of the game similar to tic-tac-toe and a second phase known as “Follow Me” that tests a player’s memory. Those mastering those aspects will come out ahead, he averred, while not many are instead just playing for entertainment in a club or bar.
“There is nothing the game can do to prevent a skilled player from winning 105 percent on every play,” Haverstick said. “Or you can sit there and push the buttons… That’s not the game, that’s the player.”
The court case is progressing while the state legislature debates a bill that would legalize and tax skill games, sponsored by state Senator Gene Yaw, who has accepted substantial campaign contributions from Pace-O-Matic.
