Key points:
- The Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) has filed a lawsuit against Caesars Online Casino and Harrah’s Philadelphia over a "$2,500 deposit match" promotion
- The promotion allegedly requires customers to wager $375,000 within seven days to access the matched funds or withdraw winnings
- The case raises broader concerns about regulation and consumer protections in the online gambling sector
A new lawsuit filed in Philadelphia County Court by the Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) is challenging what it describes as a “dangerous, misleading and illegal” promotion by Caesars Online Casino and its land-based partner Harrah’s Philadelphia.
The complaint focuses on a promotional offer advertised as a "$2,500 deposit match." According to the suit, customers can only access the matched bonus or withdraw any winnings after placing $375,000 in bets within a seven-day period.
PHAI claims this condition is not clearly disclosed in marketing materials and only appears in the fine print.
Executive Director Mark Gottlieb stated: “This promotion, engineered by Caesars, is among the most egregious we have seen to date.”
The lawsuit, Brubaker vs Chester Downs and Marina, alleges the promotion effectively rewrites Pennsylvania gambling laws by requiring excessive wagering to redeem promised bonuses.
Good to know: PHAI contends that such offers promote unsafe gambling behaviour and place players at financial and psychological risk
PHAI has previously pursued legal action against DraftKings and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, including a 2023 class action suit over bonus practices and a 2024 lawsuit demanding transparency around behavioural data tracking.
In the current case, PHAI highlights the scale of the wagering requirement through a hypothetical scenario. A customer betting $10 per hand at a pace of two hands per minute would need to play 44 hours per day for a week – an impossibility – to meet the $375,000 threshold.
Dr Harry Levant, Director of Gambling Policy at PHAI, stated: “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.”
The case is likely to reignite debate over how gaming commissions regulate bonus offers and the role of third-party oversight in protecting consumers.
