Dispute over funds won on an online gambling site; Whether plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA); MCL 432.304(1) & (3); The Michigan Gaming Control & Revenue Act (MGCRA); Kraft v Detroit Entm’t, LLC; The Michigan Gaming Control Board’s (MGCB) subject-matter jurisdiction; MCL 432.305(1) & (2); MCL 432.309; The MGCB’s authority to promulgate rules; MCL 432.310(c) & (d); “Internet game”; MCL 432.303(q); Manipulation of online games; MCL 432.313(a), (b), (c), & (e)

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant-online gambling platform summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims on the basis her claims were preempted by the LIGA. Plaintiff sued defendant alleging claims of fraud, conversion, and breach of contract after she won more than $3 million gambling on defendant’s website and defendant later zeroed out her account claiming there was an error in the game. She contended that “defendant had fraudulently misrepresented that its game was functioning properly” and that it would pay the amounts its players won, that it “had wrongfully converted the funds in her account,” and that it violated its user agreement with her. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the ground that LIGA preempted plaintiff’s claims, and denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by finding her claims were preempted by LIGA, and thus, by granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It found that “the Legislature intended that LIGA preempt inconsistent common-law claims.” And plaintiff’s “common-law claims for fraud, conversion, and breach of contract are inconsistent with LIGA.” Plaintiff’s claims, like those in Kraft (a case decided under the MGCRA), “were based in part on defendant’s alleged ‘fraud and deceit.’” A portion of her “claims appear to be explicitly based on defendant’s alleged violation of LIGA or rules promulgated under it; the remainder of plaintiff’s claims nonetheless conflict with the MGCB’s authority under LIGA to regulate all aspects of internet gaming.” The fact that the MGCB “did not or will not take action in plaintiff’s favor in this particular case does not alter our preemption analysis.” Affirmed.