Pennsylvania’s casinos are taking their fight against unregulated “skill games” to the state Supreme Court. Six Pennsylvania casinos, represented by West Chester attorney Lamb McErlane, have filed a petition with the high court appealing a 2019 decision that held games manufactured and operated by Georgia-based Pace-O-Matic (POM) had been improperly seized by state officials.
The state Supreme Court will hear arguments on the legality of the unregulated machines, which casinos claim are illegal under the state’s 2004 Race Horse Development and Gaming Act. That legislation legalized casinos and required all slot machines be approved and regulated by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB).
The casinos claim the POM machines, tens of thousands of which have appeared in gas stations, convenience stores, pizza shops and even laundromats, are essentially unregulated, untaxed slot machines. POM counters that they are legal because they require an element of skill.
That “skill” is normally dubious. In one version, a player is asked to identify a winning payline on a game that is otherwise identical to a multi-line video slot machine, and the manufacturer claims that makes them games of skill rather than chance. Opponents argue that since the player has done nothing to effect that winning combination, they are slot machines, games of chance that must be regulated and taxed.
The PGCB emailed a statement to the Play Pennsylvania news site reiterating the casinos’ position in the current case. “The board believes the Gaming Act was meant to establish the law of the commonwealth relative to all slot machine gaming, authorizing it at certain locations and on approved machines, while disallowing it everywhere, and on everything else.”
Owners of the establishments that feature the machines have weighed in on the controversy, saying the revenue from the games has kept them afloat since the Covid pandemic hit three years ago.
In a few court decisions involving POM machines, judges have ruled on the side of the skill-game operators. In last month’s court order in the case to be argued before the state Supreme Court, a judge ordered the state to return the seized machines.
“Every time the legality of our skill games has been called into question, the legal status of our games has been upheld by the judiciary,” said POM spokesman Mike Barley after the ruling. “Pace-O-Matic stands out among our competitors as the active and driving force seeking additional regulation and taxation. We remain steadfast in our commitment to working with the state General Assembly and asking for legislation providing additional regulation and increased tax money for the state.”
Judges in Dauphin and Monroe Counties previously held that the games did not fall under the act, and the gaming board thus had no authority to regulate them.
Pennsylvania casinos have battled the spread of the machines as unfair competition from games that have not been vetted as fair and provide no revenue to the state. The American Gaming Association and the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers have partnered in battling the spread of the games for the past three years.
“I’m pleased that the issue has now reached the state’s highest court,” said McErlane managing partner Joel Frank, according to Play Pennsylvania. “It’s a widespread issue because they’re popping up everywhere.”
