The end of the first week in the high-profile Federal Court action in Australia between a former compulsive gambler and the Crown Casino in Melbourne in concert with slots maker Aristocrat, raised some vital questions over the term "problem gambler" that may have implication in other countries.
Former gambler Shonica Guy is suing the casino and Aristocrat over the machine because she alleges that she was misled over her chances of winning on the Dolphin Treasure slot. The case is regarded in the Australian industry as a landmark test.
Yesterday saw the cross-examination of a panel of expert witnesses for both parties. Professor Murat Yucel, Dr Deighton (both representing Shonica Guy), Professor Emeritus Ladouceur and Professor Lia Nower (for Aristocrat) gave evidence concurrently.
Questions from the judge focused on a number of issues, including the term "addiction" and whether it is used with respect to gambling in the way it is used with other clinical diagnosis and all four experts agreed that it was used in a similar way.
The distinction between a gambling habit and a gambling addiction was raised and there was a difference of opinion. Ladouceur said that the majority of people who do gamble, as a habit, do not develop a gambling disorder. Yucel observed that alternatively it could be said that when you have an addiction you have always had habits.
Was "problem gambling" the same as "gambling disorder"? Deighton said that disorder required diagnosis by a clinician and Ladouceur said that care out to be taken when using the term "problem gambling". He said that it is better to say a person may at times have a problem but not necessarily a gambling disorder within the meaning of the DSM-5 criteria (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).
Questioned on the extent to which time and money spent on gambling was relevant to a diagnosis, Ladouceur noted that this information is relevant but that what a clinician must do is examine a person with respect to the nine DSM-5 criteria. Nower felt that frequency or significant spending on gambling machines did not necessarily reflect a gambling problem.
On the issue of whether the particular features of the Dolphin Treasure are, or are likely to be, a cause of any person becoming habituated or addicted or developing a gambling disorder, the judge noted that the court was talking about people with a spectrum of abilities and vulnerabilities and character traits. Deighton noted that the fact that machine features have the potential to be stimulating to people in certain ways is an important consideration. Nower said that from her discussions with gamblers, she had not found one that has talked about machine features as part of their experience.
Much of the questioning of the panel centred around the issue of RTP (return to player) but the questioning was abandoned when the lawyers and Ladouceur were unable to agree to a hypothetical position. Before that, however, Ladouceur had stated that the 87 per cent RTP as displayed showed that the odds are against the player and that players understood that, but he acknowledged that RTP is difficult for some to understand as there are some that believe that they can exert control over a slot machine.
The case continues and is expected to last another two weeks.
