Home - Blank Rome LLP

Register to receive insights and analyses on breaking news and trends across varying industries.
<a class="link-primary mt-4" href="/subscribe">Subscribe</a>

Philadelphia, PA

New York, NY

Wilmington, DE

Cincinnati, OH

Princeton, NJ

Los Angeles, CA

Houston, TX

Tampa, FL

Shanghai

South Florida

Pittsburgh, PA

Washington, D.C.

Chicago, IL

Orange County, CA

Dallas, TX

Boston, MA

A Pennsylvania jury issued a verdict of $15.3 million on November 10, 2025, arising from a 2020 fatal shooting of a store clerk in Hazelton, Pennsylvania. The verdict arose from an incident at a convenience store that offered to customers what are commonly known as “skill games” machines (i.e., machines that may otherwise appear to be similar to slot machines but that are combined with a purported element of skill, thus possibly removing them from oversight by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (“PGCB”)). The verdict was issued shortly before an impending argument before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding the legality of “skill games.” The jury verdict highlights the vastly different approach between regulated casinos and skill games that currently exists in the Commonwealth and raises significant questions about whether to prohibit or at least regulate “skill games” in the same manner as the casino industry. &nbsp;

core/paragraph

It is well known that the casino gaming industry is one of the most regulated industries in the country. That is not surprising because billions of dollars pass through casinos every year. In Pennsylvania, the PGCB regulates both land-based and online gaming, as well as fantasy sports. The Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act (“the Gaming Act”) creates a detailed and comprehensive regulatory scheme to oversee every aspect of the industry. Pennsylvania’s detailed regulations include rules about, amongst other things, which games are permitted, the way games are played, how surveillance must be utilized and maintained, how security is used within the casino, and how money and chips are secured and tracked. They also include strict rules about problem gambling. The PGCB also ensures that if a player wins, they get paid.&nbsp;

The structure that the Pennsylvania legislature built with the Gaming Act and its amendments has produced significant revenue for the Commonwealth, even at a time of budget uncertainty. For example, last year the Commonwealth’s licensed and regulated casinos generated a total of $2.6 billion in tax revenue, including $1.2 billion in slot machine taxes alone.

In recent years however, so-called “skill games” have begun to be offered in a variety of locations, including in convenience stores and gas stations—ballooning to the point that there are more than three times more skill machines in Pennsylvania than there are regulated slot machines. Despite their pervasive presence and their potential similarities to regulated gaming, “skill games” are currently not regulated by the Commonwealth or the PGCB in the same manner as the casino industry. For example, no specific gaming taxes are paid by those who offer the use of “skill games.” There are also no equivalent requirements regarding surveillance or security when compared to those imposed upon the casino industry operators that provide legalized and highly regulated slot machines. There are also no equivalent problem gaming protections for Pennsylvania communities and consumers for their use of “skill games” when compared to such protections established by the Gaming Act.

The result of this comparative lack of oversight was on full display when a Philadelphia jury returned its verdict in the Patel case. The trial illustrated some key highlights of the unregulated skill game industry. In particular, testimony was elicited at trial that provided insight into the lesser-known pitfalls of these machines. For example, testimony was elicited from a compliance officer at one company that discussed how certain operators of skill games would take steps to avoid paying winnings to customers. He stated:&nbsp;

“Often and still the stores would come up with ways to not pay someone who [won] a game. And that’s of course unacceptable. There would be, yes, I won $500. Please pay me. Or, sorry. We don’t have the money here. The manager is not here, you’ll have to wait until tomorrow or maybe Wednesday when the operator brings more money. And then the clerk would say – if the player shows some disappointment, the clerk will say, You know what? You won $500. I have $400 of my own money in my pocket. I’ll give you the $400 now out of the $500 ticket.”<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>

The Gaming Act and the PGCB take great steps to eliminate the possibility that such scenarios could occur at a casino. Through the work of the PGCB, comprehensive requirements for surveillance and security have been established, in part, to help keep the public and casino employees safe. There is also a significant &nbsp;enforcement apparatus to ensure that the regulations, in particular, regarding the fairness of games and payment of winnings to customers is protected. None of these protections currently exist in the same manner for “skill games” in Pennsylvania, despite the approximately 70,000 machines and an estimated $1 billion in revenue for the skill game industry in 2024.&nbsp;

The decision highlights the vastly different approach between casinos and “skill games” that currently exists in the Commonwealth. On November 20, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear oral argument regarding the legality of these “skill game” machines. Among the questions expected to be addressed are: How can a machine that physically resembles a slot machine, plays similar to a slot machine, and generates revenue like a slot machine, be permitted to operate outside the Gaming Act? It is quite possible that the Supreme Court will consider the result of the verdict – and the fact that it arose from such a tragic event – in questioning whether these skill games should be prohibited, or at least, regulated like slot machines in casinos. Ultimately, the future of skill games in Pennsylvania will depend on how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decides to evaluate these questions.

For more information or assistance, please contact <a href="/people/stephen-d-schrier/" type="poa_person" id="19265">Stephen D. Schrier</a>, <a href="/people/michael-p-trainor/" type="poa_person" id="19301">Michael P. Trainor</a>, or another member of Blank Rome’s <a href="/services-and-industries/gaming-sports-entertainment/gaming/" type="poa_practice" id="18593">Gaming</a> practice group.

core/separator

<a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> See Notes of Testimony, Biggin as Administrator of Estate of Patel v. Miele Manufacturing, Inc. et al., C.C.P. Philadelphia County, November Term 2022, N. 01639., November 3, 2025.&nbsp;

Multimillion Dollar Jury Verdict Highlights Lack of Skill Game Regulation on Eve of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Review

Offices

Stay Connected

Slide Menu

Slide Search

Multimillion Dollar Jury Verdict Highlights Lack of Skill Game Regulation on Eve of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Review

Offices

Stay Connected