New Jersey Superior Court Judge Danielle Walcoff Monday denied BetMGM’s request to throw out a case in which a New Jersey man questions how a major gambling company could change the rules of a promotion in the middle of it. The case, over BetMGM adding a player late to a slots contest without warning or explanation, is set for oral arguments in New Jersey’s Superior Court for Atlantic County on Jan. 26, 2026.

Plaintiff Larry Murk is seeking $2.5 million in damages under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act. Judge Benjamin Podolnick will hear oral arguments.

In the motion to dismiss, BetMGM lawyers wrote that the company had not defrauded gambler Murk, nor breached its contract with him. By dismissing the motion, Walcoff essentially said that she is not so sure the company didn’t do just that.

The crux of the case is this: Murk entered a promotion in which prize money and spins would be awarded to the player who bet the most on a specific digital slot game each week in May 2021. How well a player did in the contest was not relevant — it was based strictly on the amount bet over the length of the contest.

Per court records, the prize was “$500,000 worth of ‘Casino Bonus'” and 100 free spins per day for one month. Murk determined how much he would need to bet to win. In the first 10 days of the contest, Murk was at or near the top of the leaderboard. But on the 11th day, he discovered that not only was he not the leader, but that a new player, whose name hadn’t been on the leaderboard prior, was listed in first place. “MJBroker11969,” referred to in court documents as “Broker,” showed up in first place, having bet $800,000 to that point vs. Murk’s $350,000.

VIP added as ‘act of good will’

Murk contacted BetMGM to question where “Broker” had come from, and how he could have bet such a large sum in what appeared to be overnight. He was eventually told that “Broker,” a BetMGM VIP, was added to the contest as an “act of good will” because he was a high roller at the company’s Atlantic City physical casino.

In dismissing the motion to throw out the case, Walcoff revisited two key questions that arose in a previous hearing — while BetMGM lawyers claim that the terms and conditions for the contest explicitly said the company could change the rules if it gave notice, it doesn’t appear that notice of any change (i.e. adding “Broker” to the contest) was ever given, or that the contest terms and conditions were actually available to sign.

BetMGM employees previously testified that “Broker” thought he was playing in the contest, but was not playing the slot games designated for the contest. Those employees transferred his participation — the amount he had bet to date in other games — to the contest with no warning to other players. In addition, as Walcoff emphasized Monday, Murk did sign the BetMGM general terms and conditions, and while the company says he also signed the contest terms and conditions, it cannot provide documentation.

Murk’s lawyer, John Donnelly of Donnelly Law LLC, previously shared that a BetMGM compliance representative said in a deposition that the company considers the “rules [of the contest] are the terms and conditions,” and indicated that the contest terms and conditions were to be hyperlinked, but no link was available.

The same BetMGM representative testified that he was not sure if a link was added.