Dispute over alleged online gambling winnings; Whether common-law claims were abrogated by the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA); Distinguishing abrogation from preemption; Millross v Plum Hollow Golf Club; Whether the LIGA provides the exclusive remedy for all online gambling disputes; “Inconsistency”; MCL 432.304(3); Case law under the Michigan Gaming Control & Revenue Act; Kraft v Detroit Entm’t, LLC; MI Admin Code, R 432.641(7); “May”; The Michigan Gaming Control Board’s (MGCB) authority & powers; MCL 432.309

Clarifying the distinction between abrogation and preemption, the court held that “the Legislature did not intend to abrogate plaintiff’s common-law claims when enacting the LIGA,” and her breach of contract, conversion, and fraud claims were “not inconsistent with the LIGA so as to be prohibited by MCL 432.304(3).” Thus, it reversed the Court of Appeals judgment, which affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendant, and remanded to the trial court. Defendant refused to pay plaintiff her alleged winnings “because the game had allegedly malfunctioned ‘on various plays’ and erroneously credited winnings to her account.” It argued that the LIGA abrogated and ostensibly preempted her common-law claims. As an initial matter, the court clarified “that, contrary to Millross, a state statute does not ‘preempt’ the common law. The correct principle to apply in this context is abrogation.” Thus, the question was “whether the Legislature intended to abrogate the common-law claims at issue here when enacting the LIGA.” The court found the “LIGA clearly abrogates some aspects of the common law” but not all, and there was “no basis to conclude that the Legislature intended to abrogate plaintiff’s common-law claims for fraud, conversion, and breach of contract.” Defendant also argued “there is no common-law right to recover winnings from gambling and that the LIGA did not purport to create any such right.” But the court noted that “by permitting online gambling, the Legislature intended to abrogate any common-law rules premised on the assumption that gambling is unlawful.” Further, defendant’s position presumed “the common law does not change.” This is incorrect. “Because our existing common-law rules may be ‘adapted to current needs in light of changing times and circumstances,’ the common law is particularly well-suited to address ongoing developments arising from the LIGA.” The court also rejected defendant’s claim “that the LIGA provides the exclusive remedy for all online gambling disputes.” It noted that “the LIGA does not provide any remedy or procedure for aggrieved patrons like plaintiff.” As to the question of “inconsistency,” the court concluded her “pursuit of her common-law claims in circuit court is not ‘inconsistent’ with a statutory scheme that confers on the MGCB discretion to take corrective action, particularly when the MGCB has expressly disclaimed any role in resolving the merits of disputes between patrons and gaming providers.”