Springfield Business Journal_2024-04-22

NEWS APRIL 22-28, 2024 SPRINGFIELD BUSINESS JOURNAL · 23 for gambling,” the petition states. “Under Missouri statutes, such coin-operated machines are legal and, in fact, are validly licensed by the city of Springfield.” The filing adds that Torch pays the city $5 annually for each machine that is operated in the city, and the city’s director of finance issues licenses for them. Every machine operating in the city has been licensed since 2019, it states. The filing builds an argument that game play is not a form of gambling. It explains that to use a Torch machine, a customer inserts money and is prompted to play a game. “Torch’s coin-operated amusement machines allow the customer to see the results of the game before the customer puts money in the machine, and before they play the game,” it states. It adds that outcomes on the machines are “predetermined, finite and in sequential order” and are not determined by an element of chance. “These predetermined outcomes cannot be altered and, thus, are not competitive and nor are they games of chance,” the petition states. “A customer knows the outcome before they decide to play the game and before they must commit their money.” It adds that the machines do not award a prize, under the dictionary definition of the term. The complaint cites a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of prize as meaning “something offered or striven for in competition or in contests of chance.” But it notes that Torch machines are not competitive and do not rely on chance. By this definition, the machines do not offer prizes, according to the lawsuit. The suit alleges that the city has issued citations to clerks in convenience stores and gas stations while demanding they immediately disable machines. “The aforementioned non-managerial store clerks have no authority to turn off, remove, offer for use or otherwise maintain plaintiff’s coin-operated amusement machines and, in fact, are directed to not otherwise interfere with plaintiff’s coin-operated amusement machines,” the complaint states. Torch also claims enforcement efforts violate its due process rights, rendering its licenses ineffective and offering no opportunities for its concerns to be heard. The company also cites a void-for-vagueness doctrine in the suit, noting the definitions of devices are vague enough that they may encompass operators of children’s arcades, e-sports gaming lounges, radio giveaways and fair attractions. This vagueness encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, the suit claims. A trial date does not appear on the Missouri Courts website, but a motion hearing is set in Missouri’s 31st Judicial Circuit for 2:30 p.m. April 24 by Associate Circuit Judge Nathan Taylor. Cora Scott, Springfield’s director of public information, said the city does not comment on pending litigation. Likewise, Torch Electronics did not respond to a written request for comment. State legislation State gubernatorial candidate and Missouri House Minority Floor Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, in February proposed House Bill 2835, which would legalize the type of games in question, referred to as video lottery terminals in the bill, and would regulate and tax them. The bill also would allow cities and counties to ban the machines. The bill stipulates that the state Lottery Commission would implement a licensing structure for the games. It also requires mechanical amusement devices to be connected to a centralized computer system. Under the bill, persons may exclude themselves from game play by adding their name to a confidential list maintained by the Lottery Commission. It also limits the maximum wager to $5 and the maximum payoff to $1,100. Additionally, 33% of adjusted gross receipts earned from game play would be deposited into the state’s Lottery Fund, in part to pay for administrative costs. Quade’s bill has had two readings, but a further hearing is not scheduled, and the bill is currently not on a calendar in the House of Representatives, according to the House website. • SPD: Lawsuit claims machines do not constitute games of chance Continued from page 10

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy