The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, in a 7-0 decision, has upheld a lower-court ruling that the so-called “skill games” produced by Georgia-based Pace-O-Matic (POM) and placed in convenience stores, pizza shops and a variety of other locations around the state are legal games of skill, not subject to the state’s gaming laws.
The decision upholds the first court decision won by Pace-O-Matic, when a Dauphin County judge held the slot-like machines—opposed by state law enforcement, the American Gaming Association (AGA), the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers (AGEM) and the state’s casinos as unlicensed, unregulated slot machines—are legal games of skill that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the state Gaming Control Board (PGCB).
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 AGA, AGEM 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.
“The POM machines at issue in this case are not slot machines as commonly defined,” Commonwealth Court Judge Lori Dumas wrote in the unanimous decision. “Accordingly, these electronic games are not illegal. Further, applying the predominant factor test adopted by this Court … these POM machines are not gambling devices and therefore do not constitute derivative contraband.”
Attorney Susan Affront, who’s representing Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry in the case, told reporters the state plans to appeal the Commonwealth Court’s decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The state has argued that the machines are, in fact, “slot machines as commonly defined,” in light of 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 state argues that this amendment places the skill machines under the purview of the PGCB, and thus, to regulation under the state’s gaming law.
A bill filed by state Senator Gene Yaw that would register and tax all of the machines has yet to move out of committee. Yaw’s bill would require the games be placed only in liquor-licensed establishments, and would be subject to age restrictions.
The case is a lawsuit initiated by POM when a group of its machines, branded “Pennsylvania Skill,” were seized by law enforcement as illegal slot machines. It is one of four cases involving skill games that are winding their way through the Pennsylvania courts.
Matthew Haverstick, an attorney for Pace-O-Matic, described the decision as “historic” and applauded the verdict. “I think it’s a landmark decision in that it’s a decision of indisputable statewide application,” he said, according to Yogonet.
“This is a major victory for Pennsylvania Skill, but it’s equally a victory for our operators and the thousands of small businesses, volunteer fire companies, and fraternal clubs who have come to depend on the revenue our games provide.”
Paul Goldean, president and CEO of Pace-O-Matic, said in a statement. “Our games have always been legal, and this ruling proves that once and for all.”
In the opinion, Judge Lori Dumas agreed with the earlier decision of the Dauphin court, which found credibility in the testimony of legendary game designer and gaming consultant Olaf Vancura, who testified that a skilled player can win an optimal 105 percent return on the games.
The state has cited the definition included in the 2017 law in opposing that argument.
