Michigan businesses operate within an extensive network of laws and regulatory agencies. Whether the industry involves construction, insurance, real estate, financial services, or online gaming, a regulatory scheme may establish rules and enforcement procedures. But when a company suffers financial harm from an alleged misrepresentation, broken agreement, or wrongful retention of funds, regulation does not necessarily prevent a private lawsuit.
The Michigan Supreme Court addressed that distinction in Davis v. BetMGM, LLC, No. 166281 (July 22, 2025). The Court held that Michigan’s Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA) did not abolish a customer’s traditional common-law claims for breach of contract, fraud, and conversion. Although the dispute arose in online gaming, the decision offers important guidance about the relationship between regulatory oversight and civil remedies.
Jacqueline Davis alleged that she accumulated more than $3 million in winnings on BetMGM’s online casino platform during six days in March 2021. BetMGM initially approved a $100,000 withdrawal and congratulated her on the winnings. After she withdrew that amount, however, BetMGM suspended her account, investigated the gameplay, and asserted that a game malfunction had improperly inflated her balance. It refused to pay the remaining amount she claimed.
Davis sued in Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging that BetMGM breached its contractual obligations, made fraudulent representations, and exercised wrongful control over funds she claimed belonged to her. BetMGM argued that the comprehensive gaming regulatory scheme placed the dispute within the Michigan Gaming Control Board’s authority rather than the courts. The circuit court dismissed the case, and a divided Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed. The central legal question, it explained, was not simply whether the gaming law ‘preempted’ private claims, but whether the Legislature had abrogated established common-law rights. Abrogation means changing or eliminating rights or remedies that existed under the common law. Michigan courts do not presume that the Legislature intended such a result merely because it enacted detailed regulations. The statutory text and legislative intent must support that conclusion.
Nothing in LIGA clearly eliminated Davis’s causes of action. The Court also distinguished an agency’s ability to regulate an industry from a court’s ability to resolve a private claim for damages. The Gaming Control Board can investigate complaints, oversee operators, and require corrective action, but those regulatory functions do not themselves confer authority to adjudicate every private dispute or award the monetary relief a claimant seeks.
BetMGM also relied on MCL 432.304(3), which excludes laws inconsistent with LIGA from application to covered internet gaming. The Supreme Court concluded that comprehensive regulation alone did not make Davis’s claims inconsistent with the Act. Because the Board’s regulatory powers did not displace judicial resolution of these private causes of action, allowing the lawsuit to proceed did not conflict with the statutory framework.
For businesses, the distinction can be consequential. A licensing authority may investigate misconduct or impose a penalty without compensating a company that lost money. A separate civil action may address the financial consequences of a broken commercial promise, a material misrepresentation in a business sale, or interference with identifiable property. Regulatory enforcement and private litigation can serve different purposes, although the governing statute may limit or channel available remedies.
The decision does not mean that all business claims survive regulation. Some statutes expressly establish exclusive remedies or require administrative procedures before litigation. Nor does an unpaid debt automatically constitute conversion: Michigan law imposes additional requirements when a plaintiff claims wrongful control over money. Businesses must evaluate the precise statute, the agency’s powers, the underlying agreement, and the elements of each proposed claim.
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not decide that Davis was entitled to the disputed winnings. It restored her ability to pursue the claims and returned the matter for further proceedings. She still had to prove the elements of breach of contract, fraud, or conversion, and BetMGM remained free to assert its defenses.
The ruling therefore concerns access to a potential remedy, not an automatic finding of liability. Davis reinforces a practical principle for Michigan commercial disputes: extensive government oversight does not, by itself, immunize a regulated company from ordinary civil liability. A business considering legal action should examine both regulatory options and traditional claims before assuming that an administrative complaint is its only recourse.
Contact Tishkoff PLC About a Michigan Business Dispute
Tishkoff PLC represents businesses and individuals in Michigan commercial litigation, including contractual disputes, alleged business fraud, and related controversies. Experienced counsel can assess whether a regulatory framework affects the claims and remedies available in a particular dispute. www.tish.law/contact/
Case Reference: Davis v. BetMGM, LLC, Michigan Supreme Court Docket No. 166281 (July 22, 2025), reversing Davis v. BetMGM, LLC, 348 Mich App 402; 19 NW3d 138 (2023).
Read the Michigan Supreme Court Opinion: https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/2025/166281.html
Legal References and Sources:
1. Davis v. BetMGM, LLC, Michigan Supreme Court, No. 166281 (July 22, 2025) (published), reversing Davis v. BetMGM, LLC, 348 Mich App 402; 19 NW3d 138 (2023). The Supreme Court reviewed Davis’s allegations concerning more than $3 million in online gaming winnings and reversed the dismissal of her common-law claims.
Source: Michigan Supreme Court Opinion – Davis v. BetMGM, LLC
2. Davis v. BetMGM, LLC, No. 166281, slip op at 17–19 (Mich. July 22, 2025); Murphy v. Inman, 509 Mich 132, 153; 983 NW2d 354 (2022). Michigan courts do not lightly presume that legislation eliminates established common-law rights. Legislative intent controls whether statutory law abrogates existing causes of action.
Source: Official Michigan Supreme Court Opinion (PDF)
3. Lawful Internet Gaming Act, MCL 432.305(1), 432.309; Mich Admin Code, R 432.641(7). These provisions establish the Michigan Gaming Control Board’s regulatory powers, including authority to investigate complaints and direct corrective action. The Supreme Court concluded that the Board’s discretionary authority did not eliminate private common-law claims.
Source: Michigan Administrative Code, Rule 432.641 – Authorized Participant Complaints
4. Lawful Internet Gaming Act, 2019 PA 152, MCL 432.301 et seq., particularly MCL 432.304(3). The statute provides that laws inconsistent with the Act do not apply to internet gaming governed by it. The Supreme Court determined that Davis’s common-law claims were not inconsistent with the Act merely because the industry was comprehensively regulated.
Source: Michigan Legislature – Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 432
5. Davis v. BetMGM, LLC, No. 166281 (Mich. July 22, 2025). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Wayne County Circuit Court for further proceedings. Its decision allowed the plaintiff to pursue her common-law causes of action but did not establish that BetMGM was liable for breach of contract, fraud, or conversion.
This publication is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult legal counsel for advice on your specific circumstances.
Prepared by Tishkoff paralegal Kimberley Taschereau, Tishkoff PLC. Reviewed by Tishkoff PLC attorney William G. Tishkoff.