The Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) filed a lawsuit against Caesars in Pennsylvania over an “alleged dangerous, misleading, and illegal ‘deposit match’ promotion,” according to a press release.
Many online casinos in the Keystone State offer deposit match promotions, which contain a playthrough requirement. PHAI is claiming that Caesars Palace customers must playthrough as much as $375,000 in seven days to earn the deposit match.
PlayPennsylvania obtained the complaint made by PHAI, which says:
“Caesars deceptively designed its promotions so that it is virtually impossible for it to ever lose money.
“That is because a customer who does not satisfy the promotion’s draconian wagering requirements, or who decides to cancel the promotion, not only forfeits the promised ‘bonus’ funds, but also any money that a customer wins in pursuit of the bonus.”
PHAI is also alleging that Caesars “violated Pennsylvania statutes that govern the payouts for successful wagers.”
Caesars has not immediately responded to PlayPennsylvania‘s request for comment.
Details of the lawsuit
Grant Brubaker, of Lebanon, Pennsylvania, is the plaintiff in the lawsuit against Caesars. Brubaker opened a Caesars account on Dec. 20, 2024, depositing $1,000 in response to the $2,500 bonus.
At the end of the promotion on Dec. 27, Brubaker did not receive the $2,500 bonus and tried to withdraw funds on Dec. 31. However, the plaintiff was unable to and claimed to have lost a total of $2,200.
PHAI displayed Caesars’ ad in the complaint, and even called it clear. However, it claims that the ad does not contain terms and conditions. It just directs customers to “view offer details” in small print below the ad.
The detail in question is called a playthrough requirement, a common term for many online casino bonuses, including deposit matches. For a player to receive a deposit match, they must “play through” a specific dollar amount–typically their initial deposit plus the matched funds from the casino–a specific number of times. The playthrough requirement is represented as a multiplier: 5X, 10X, 30X, etc.
In the case of Brubaker’s Caesars promo, to get the full deposit match bonus of $2,500, a player would need to deposit $2,500 of their own money and then playthrough their deposit plus the deposit match credits ($5,000 in total) different numbers of times, depending on the type of game. Specifically, 15x on slots, 30x on video poker, and 75x for all other games (excluding all variations of Craps, Roulette, Baccarat and Sic Bo).
Since blackjack requires a 75x playthrough, the complaint calculated the requirement:
“In other words, for games where the casino has the lowest statistical advantage over a player, such as blackjack, players seeking to obtain the full $2,500 bonus must wager a staggering $375,000 ($5,000 Base Sum x 75) within 7 days—approximately $53,570 per day.”
PHAI called it “mathematically impossible” to achieve for a customer playing $10 per hand.
PHAI to protect gamblers
In a press release, PHAI called Caesars’ promotions dangerous, misleading and illegal. The company is filing the complaint to protect the well-being of the public.
PHAI Founder and President. Dr. Richard Daynard said in a statement:
“The mission of the Public Health Advocacy Institute is to protect public health and advance social justice.
“The days of the gambling industry disregarding public health and safety are coming to an end. When Caesars doesn’t play fair, it puts players’ health at risk.”
Dr. Harry Levant, Director of Gambling Policy at PHAI, also warned of the potential risks of alleged misleading promotions:
“It is unconscionable for a gambling company to knowingly require people to gamble excessively and put their mental health at risk as a condition to cash out their winnings.
“More importantly, nothing in Pennsylvania’s gambling rules or laws permits a casino to refuse payment unless and until customers begin gambling to excess. This is dangerous to Caesar’s customers, immoral, and just plain wrong.”
The complaint also noted that “a reasonable consumer would not be reasonably likely to understand the terms and conditions that such a customer needed to satisfy in order to obtain the $2,500 bonus.” It’s likely Brubaker did not understand the terms, which makes the fine print important to read.
The plaintiff is seeking $52,000 in damagers, which covers $2,200 in money lost, punitive damages of $19,800, and attorneys’ fees of $30,000.
PHAI brought a similar case against DraftKings in Massachusetts. A judge denied DraftKings’ motion to dismiss, allowing the litigation to continue.
