Pace-O-Matic, the Georgia-based manufacturer of unregulated “skill gaming machines” spreading across Pennsylvania, has scored another victory in a county lawsuit in Pennsylvania.
A judge in Monroe County has ruled that the county district attorney improperly directed the seizure of Pace-O-Matic machines, and ordered the machines returned. Judge Jonathan Mark ruled that the slot-like devices “are games of skill and not games of chance,” and therefore, did not fall under the state’s gaming law.
The Pace-O-Matic games, branded “Pennsylvania Skill,” operate like normal slot machines; the only difference is that the player must identify a winning payline to trigger the pay. The American Gaming Association, the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers and the state’s licensed casinos have been battling the spread of the games for years, as they do not undergo any regulatory scrutiny to ensure fairness, and the manufacturers have not been vetted as to their suitability for licensing.
Other objections to the machines note that they are placed in small businesses such as convenience stores, pizza shops and even laundromats, where there are no age restrictions for entry.
Monroe is the fourth county in which Pace-O-Matic has won in a lawsuit after machine seizures. County judges in Beaver, Dauphin and York counties issued similar rulings. It is the second case in Monroe County, following a February decision in which Common Pleas Judge Jennifer Harlache held, “The court finds that the commonwealth improperly withheld and misrepresented material evidence relative to the issuance of the search warrant in this matter, and that such conduct warrants the suppression of the seized property.”
“Again, another Pennsylvania court has found that Pennsylvania Skill games, powered by Pace-O-Matic, are legal games of predominant skill,” said Pace-O-Matic in a press release. “With the legality of our games upheld repeatedly, we are eager to work with the Legislature to pass legislation that will fairly regulate and tax the skill game industry. In fact, Pace-O-Matic stands out among our competitors as the active driving force seeking additional regulation and taxation.”
The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB) does not agree with the court decisions, and board Chairwoman Denise Smyler said at a recent trade conference that the board is appealing the decisions based on Act 24, the 2017 amendment to the state gaming law that specifically defined a “hybrid slot machine” as “a slot machine in which a combination of the skill of the player and elements of chance affect the outcome of the game, and a “skill slot machine” as “a slot machine in which the skill of the player, rather than the element of chance, is the predominant factor in affecting the outcome of the game.”
The board claims this amendment places the skill machines under the purview of the PGCB, and thus, to regulation under the state’s gaming law.
Legalization of the skill games is currently before lawmakers in the form of a bill filed by state Senator Gene Yaw that would register and tax all of the machines. Yaw’s bill would require the games be placed only in liquor-licensed establishments, and would be subject to age restrictions.
