Yesterday saw the beginning of closing submissions by the lawyers representing the two sides in the big federal court case in Melbourne, Australia, between a one-time compulsive gambler and the Crown Casino with Aristocrat, the slot machine maker.
Shonica Guy was suing both the casino and Aristocrat in a much-publicised challenge to the credibility of slots, alleging that the Dolphin Treasure machine misrepresented her chances of winning.
Points made by Aristocrat’s legal team included the observation that Guy had played the Dolphin Treasure but had also played other slots and there was no evidence to suggest that the Dolphin Treasure had played a more significant role in her problems than other games. The legal team also suggested that Guy’s lawyers had put forward much lay evidence but none of it proved that players form impressions about reel lengths or that they understand the term "return to player".
They also suggested that the expert witness representing Guy was “out of his depth on topics he was discussing” and was ultimately unable to articulate any coherent basis for his opinions. It was also suggested that he displayed misunderstandings about how the Dolphin Treasure worked and that another expert witness for Guy had plagiarised significant portions of his report.
Peter Jopling QC, for Aristocrat noted that the company is open and transparent with the regulator and that there was no evidence that Aristocrat had sought to target any particular person or group.
For Crown, Neil Young QC said that the case against the casino was hypothetical and contrived and that the casino was doing no more than conducting a lawful business in a lawful manner and the applicant (Guy) had accepted that Crown complied with the regulatory regime and that Crown goes further with responsible gaming programmes. He added that with RTP any ordinary reasonable player would not think that they would obtain a return of 87 per cent in each session of play.
The case continues with more closing remarks today and the response from the applicant tomorrow. The judge’s conclusions may be several months away.
