Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Hears Appeal in the Bally’s Casino Dispute

The Bally's State College casino saga continues as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court takes on the appeals from the parties involved. This dispute has its origins in September 2020 when the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB) awarded the casino license to Ira Lubert's SC Gaming company despite protests from Stadium Casino. The legal proceedings have caused delays in the construction of the new casino. In this article, we will delve into the latest developments in the case and its potential implications for Pennsylvania's gaming industry.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's involvement in the Bally's State College casino case is a significant development. Initially, the PGCB granted the license to SC Gaming, leading to Stadium Casino's protests. Stadium Casino filed an appeal to have the case heard in the Commonwealth Court. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the PGCB, indicating that the case would be held at the state's highest level. This decision contradicted Stadium Casino's wishes but highlighted the seriousness of the issues raised.

The case's journey to the Supreme Court began in February when the Commonwealth Court deemed Stadium Casino's arguments "ripe" for further review. These arguments primarily revolve around whether Ira Lubert's partners in SC Gaming had proper licenses in Pennsylvania. The court recognized that this controversy required a closer examination.

The legal battle between SC Gaming and Stadium Casino has been ongoing for nearly three years. In September 2020, SC Gaming secured the casino license from the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, despite Stadium Casino's reservations about the license's legitimacy.

Stadium Casino has consistently alleged that Ira Lubert's partners in SC Gaming lacked the necessary licenses in Pennsylvania, casting doubt on the legality of the license awarded.

Attorney Mark Aronchick, representing Stadium Casino, expressed his concerns in December 2020, emphasizing the importance of scrutinizing the ownership interests in the facility. He argued that Lubert's dealings with unlicensed entities and individuals before the license application should be thoroughly investigated

However, both the PGCB and SC Gaming have maintained that their actions were within the bounds of the law and have denied any wrongdoing throughout the legal proceedings.

While the legal dispute over Bally's State College casino continues, Bally's online casino in Pennsylvania remains unaffected. Since its launch in June, Bally Casino PA has achieved remarkable success in the online gaming market. Within 29 days, it recorded $1 million in gross gaming revenue and $30 million in handle, making it one of the most successful online casino launches in Pennsylvania.

One notable aspect of Bally's online presence is that it didn't require a land-based partner to launch its online casino. This was made possible through a Qualified Gaming Entity (QGE) application, allowing Bally's to operate its online platform independently.

Bally's emergence as the 20th online gaming platform in Pennsylvania has had a positive impact on the state's online gaming market. In July, the operator generated nearly $2 million in revenue, further solidifying its position in the market.

Despite the legal challenges faced by its retail casino, Bally's online casino has been thriving in Pennsylvania. However, the operator's reputation and recognition within the state are likely to receive a significant boost once the issues surrounding the construction of its retail casino are resolved.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's involvement in the Bally's State College casino case indicates the seriousness of the legal issues raised by Stadium Casino. While the dispute has caused delays in the construction of the physical casino, Bally's online casino has continued to flourish in the Keystone State.

Once the legal matters are resolved, Bally's is poised to make a more significant impact on Pennsylvania's gaming industry, both online and offline. The outcome of this case could have implications for future casino licensing and operations in the state.