The big Federal Court action in Melbourne, Australia, in which a former compulsive gambler had sued the Crown Casino there and machine maker Aristocrat, came to a conclusion yesterday.

The judge, Justice Debbie Mortimer, will now evaluate 4,000 pages of evidence before making her determinations on the outcome of the case brought by Shonica Guy against the casino and the slots maker, alleging that the Dolphin Treasure machine lulled players into thinking that they had won, when they had not.

Many fundamental arguments affecting the global casino industry were discussed during the three-week trial, including at some length the definition and differences between what constitutes “compulsive gambling,” a “gambling disorder” and “problem gambling.”

The counsel for Crown, in his closing remarks, made the point that the law dealing with the approval of games was clear that Crown cannot do anything to the slot machine, only deploy it. He emphasised that “any reasonable player” would know that the outcome of a game is random.

He said that there was a “vague and uncertain” group of “vulnerable players” defined to include people who are simply at risk of moving in some future stage towards having a gambling disorder.

Gambling, he said, is not a special disability. He referred to the decision of the High Court in Kakavas, which found that even a person with a pathological gambling disability was capable of making judgments in his own best interests and could not be regarded as having a special disability for the purposes of “unconscionability” law.

Gray QC, for Shonica Guy, in his closing remarks sought to clarify his comments with respect to the ordinary reasonable player. He submitted that the ordinary reasonable player will not necessarily understand the mathematical concept of “randomness,” but would appreciate that the outcome of each turn on the game is the product of chance. 

With respect to probability, he submitted that this is something that is inferred by the player by the overall regularity and evenness of the symbols as distributed and that the overall impression conveyed is that the symbols are as evenly spread as possible across the five reels.

Gray QC submitted that the class includes the gullible and the inexperienced. In this respect they disagree with the class as defined by Crown. The judge queried whether this meant that you identify attributes of a class of people and within that the court can consider that some people are gullible and some are not and some would read the PID screen and some might not. 

Gray QC agreed and conceded that Her Honour would not be able to find that there has been misleading or deceptive conduct if she is satisfied that only those with a gambling disorder would be misled. Gray QC confirmed that a gambling disorder was not a relevant attribute for members of the class.

The counsel for Shonica Guy also disputed that Crown was a “conduit” for the slot machines and nothing more. He submitted Crown and Aristocrat have an ongoing relationship that includes the provision of time on floor slots and that Crown was conducting a business where it profited from each machine (and each had Crown branding).

Another of the Shonica Guy legal team, Merkel QC, pointed out that Crown alone determined which gaming machines would be placed on its floor to generate profit; Crown alone prepared and set specifications, the full details on which Aristocrat and other manufacturers must comply.

He added that Crown determined the specifications it must dispense; that where approval is sought for a variation to an existing machine, approval is sought by and granted to Aristocrat for either operation as part of Crown’s network or for operation at the Crown Casino; Crown acquires a licence which entitles it to supply the software; and Crown and Aristocrat’s branding appears on each machine.

In reply, Crown’s counsel criticised Shonica Guy and her legal team for having amended her claim “on the run” unfairly and that some of the applicant’s team had framed some of the “unconscionability” claim in a new way, different from that framed in the pleadings or even in the opening of the case.

The court ran out of time to hear Aristocrat’s reply, but the judge gave leave for the company to submit its response in writing.