Chuck E. Cheese's sued for tot 'slot machines'

[buzz_n64]

A San Diego woman has sued the company that owns the Chuck E. Cheese’s family restaurant chain, claiming that many of the games intended for children at these locations are actually illegal gambling devices — like slot machines.

Denise Keller, a local real estate agent and mother of two daughters ages 3 and 5, filed the potential class-action suit in U.S. District Court March 29. According to court documents, she is asking for a jury trial and damages and restitution of at least $5 million.

But attorney Eric Benink, who represents Keller, said the money is a secondary issue. The purpose of the lawsuit, he said, is to prevent Texas-based CEC Entertainment Inc., which owns and operates the restaurants in 48 states, from keeping the machines in its game rooms...

Full story- http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...-promotes-ill/
San Diego Union Tribune

I'm sorry that she's from my hometown, I apologize for her stupidity.

[Porksta]

The money issue is ridiculous, but she does have a point.

[kupomogli]

How can she really sue for five million anyways? I mean did the machines actually affect her other than being illegal? She saw one, decided to probably look up and see if Chuck E Cheese paid gambling fees or was in a state that considered gambling illegal and then brought them to court for the sole purpose of trying to get money that she doesn't deserve? I'd think a slot machine in an area where it is illegal would be a large fine from the government.

Oh noes. Her kids are three and five. Their minds have been warped by "being under her supervision while playing this evil gambling game." Then she happened to come to her senses and realized. OMG. It's illegal. I need to sue for 2k(x2500) monies.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I was under the impression that coin-op redemption games that do not pay out in cash are not technically "gambling" games.

Gambling money for money is illegal in many states yet there are/were arcades that had token/ticket pay-out slot machines, video poker, coin push games, even skill games like ski-ball or claw machines as well as many other varieties of games nearly everywhere that were legal to have for amusement purposes.

I'm not up on California's laws on the subject, but technically couldn't any of those theoretically be considered "gambling" as there is ultimately a risk of zero reward for cash paid ... and if that IS the case why were they not illegal in every single state that had/continues to have them in arcades/stores/malls/movie theatres/etc. over the years?

I'm thinking when it finally gets to the courts there's no real case to be had.

[buzz_n64]

Check out this cool response video.

Woman Sues Chuck E. Cheese!!!!
http://youtu.be/tazQmzXoLHE

Even if she wins the lawsuit, she is then guilty of participating in the illegal gambling and can then be arrested. She can't win! Anyways, if she does win, she should be awarded by the judge 5 million prize tickets.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Nolan Bushnell does not approve of suing Chuck E. Cheese.

[TonyTheTiger]

It's definitely a reasonable issue to take up. Not just about Chuck E. Cheese but lots of things we consider just mundane aspects of children's entertainment.

If you want to get super technical, whenever you pay money for a chance, that's gambling. So putting a quarter in a machine in the hopes of it spitting out the trinket you hoped for is not really any different than putting a quarter in a slot machine at the Tropicana in the hopes of it spitting out $1,000 you hoped for.

I can't comment on the lawsuit, but there is a school of thought that stuff like Pokemon cards (where you pay money for the chance that there's a rare one inside), redemption machines, and boardwalk/carnival games are basically hooking kids young, so to speak, making sure they not only keep pumping quarters in those machines but inadvertently drive them to the racetrack as soon as they turn 18. Hell, there are boardwalk games that actually do involve (plastic) horse racing.

I'm mostly a personal responsibility guy and don't think it's quite that dire, but it's not an entirely meritless argument.

The idea of a kid version of something traditionally for adults is pretty commonplace. From candy cigarettes (which are far less common these days), to power wheels, to those increasingly more realistic (and sometimes creepy) baby dolls.

Again, I don't think it's dire. But I think we do have at least some sense of a line there somewhere. If not a legal one then an ethical one.

[skaar]

I'm thankful I live in a world where other people can give a shit about things nobody else does.

Then sue about it.

[Flack]

I was under the impression that coin-op redemption games that do not pay out in cash are not technically "gambling" games.

Gambling money for money is illegal in many states yet there are/were arcades that had token/ticket pay-out slot machines, video poker, coin push games, even skill games like ski-ball or claw machines as well as many other varieties of games nearly everywhere that were legal to have for amusement purposes.

I'm not up on California's laws on the subject, but technically couldn't any of those theoretically be considered "gambling" as there is ultimately a risk of zero reward for cash paid ... and if that IS the case why were they not illegal in every single state that had/continues to have them in arcades/stores/malls/movie theatres/etc. over the years?

I'm thinking when it finally gets to the courts there's no real case to be had.

The way it was explained to me one time (by a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy) was that those games are not gambling, because the law defines gambling as games of "chance" versus those other games, which are defined as games of "skill". For example take a crane game. We all know they're rigged, but pretend they aren't for a minute. The idea is that picking up stuffed animals is a skill, and not a game of chance. This ruling was partially responsible for the influx of those "skill stop" slot machines. Normally, slot machines are a game of chance -- gambling. But if the player has to manually stop each reel, it becomes a game of skill -- skill, not gambling.

All of the kiddie games I've seen at CEC and places like that involve some sort of human interaction, even if it's simply pressing a button to stop a wheel or timing exactly when you drop the token into the "pushing tray" machine.

Most of those ticket redemption games fall under the same umbrella as midway games at the fair. If anything comes out of this at all, it may be that the games will have to be labelled as "games of skill" or something like that. No way anybody's getting $5 million.

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm not sure what the legal definition is but I doubt it can just be a matter of human interaction. Otherwise something like Craps would be perfectly legal for minors to play. Or maybe Black Jack or Poker where skill (or mathmatics) can make a huge difference between winning and losing.

[Satoshi_Matrix]

wow. what a bitch. Those coin-op redemption games were the ONLY thing I liked about Chuck E. Cheese parties when I was a kid. Way to spoil the fun of millions of kids lady.

[pixelsnpolygons]

Perhaps she should move her kids to Marshfield, Massachusetts.

[goatdan]

I can't comment on the lawsuit, but there is a school of thought that stuff like Pokemon cards (where you pay money for the chance that there's a rare one inside), redemption machines, and boardwalk/carnival games are basically hooking kids young, so to speak, making sure they not only keep pumping quarters in those machines but inadvertently drive them to the racetrack as soon as they turn 18. Hell, there are boardwalk games that actually do involve (plastic) horse racing.

I'm mostly a personal responsibility guy and don't think it's quite that dire, but it's not an entirely meritless argument.

The problem is just when does it stop? The whole Pokemon stuff might have a rare card argument, which I've heard before, is similar to saying that we should stop selling all baseball cards because if they get an Alex Rodriguez that is worth more than they paid for the pack of cards, it could be gambling. There is most definitely no skill in buying a pack of cards, right?

The thing about the CEC games is that they all either have *some* aspect of skill to them -- yeah, the coin may just go down a ramp into a slot (Smokin' Token, I'm lookin' at you) but the timing of when you put that coin in has to do with if it scores 1 ticket or 500 tickets. Slot machines have zero skill involved, so it's a different beast.

Having said that, I worked at an FEC once where the owner was seriously considering buying slot machines and rigging them to spit tickets. I told him he was crazy.

In this case, either she'll win in California under their law and CEC will have to change how they run their California stores but there will be no cash reward, or she'll lose. Ain't no way they are going to agree with it. The only potential problem will be actually demonstrating 'skill' in some of those games, but it is definitely something I think that can be argued.

[leatherrebel5150]

It's definitely a reasonable issue to take up. Not just about Chuck E. Cheese but lots of things we consider just mundane aspects of children's entertainment.
.

^C'mon really? A resonable issue to take up? It is just stupid to even consider making this an issue. "Oh no, my kid played a game that resembles a slot machine, oh god what will I do?"

Regardless of what the game is similar to, whether it be a slot like game, video poker, or skee ball IT IS JUST A FRIKIN GAME!

I don't even understand what the danger is for kids, that they would become addicted to gambling? I've went to Chuck E. Cheeses tons of times when I was a kid and never thought, after playing the games, dam I want to hit up a casino.

This is just another one of those cases of trying to protect kids from a non-existant danger just because some idiot doesn't like it something for their kids it must be dangerous and must be eliminated. It is just like the story that came out of California not too long ago about the state or a city wanted to force McDonald's to remove toys from the happy meals because it attracted kids too not so healthy food. You can't eliminate danger and bad influence so just stop destroying the fun for the rest of us.

All of this can be resolved from one thing...Parenting.

Teach your kids about gambling and the dangers of it and make tem understand the diffenence between that and an arcade game.

One last thing, the last time I was at Chuck E. Cheese every game gave you 6 tickets right after you put the token in, so your score and skill didn't matter you still got 6 tickets. So the argument that it is gambling because you have a chance of getting alot or nothing from these machines, at least in the case of Chuck E. Cheese is false.

[TonyTheTiger]

The problem is just when does it stop? The whole Pokemon stuff might have a rare card argument, which I've heard before, is similar to saying that we should stop selling all baseball cards because if they get an Alex Rodriguez that is worth more than they paid for the pack of cards, it could be gambling. There is most definitely no skill in buying a pack of cards, right?

The argument isn't to remove Pokemon or baseball cards from store shelves. There can still be rare cards but the argument is to remove the chance aspect by making it clear which cards are in which packs.

I'm not sure what to think about that. Yeah, part of the fun of opening a pack was seeing what you got. On the other hand, it was always a bitch and a half when you got nothing but doubles. As a kid, I probably would have actually liked to know what was inside before paying for it.

Teach your kids about gambling and the dangers of it and make tem understand the diffenence between that and an arcade game.

But there isn't a difference. Paying for a chance to win = gambling, whether it's for money or redemption tickets.

That's why it's worth bringing up at the very least. Because if you think about it, it is pretty flimsy to say "gambling is illegal for anybody under 18...unless they stand to win anything except money." It may not be highly destructive but that doesn't make it any less flimsy. What's so special about money as a reward that makes it off limits while everything else is just fine?

Hell, flip it around and you could argue that if playing for tickets or tokens is ok then so is playing for cash. No age limits in casinos?

I'm not saying that going to Chuck E. Cheese will turn kids into compulsive gamblers. What I'm saying is that the widespread belief that kids are not allowed to gamble is flat out false.

[alec006]

Really lady, Chuckie Cheese has been around since what the early 80's and no one else has complained about this ever. I'm sorry but people are getting a bit too ridiculous when it comes to stupid shit like this. I mean it's like Nintendo taking the slot machine game corner out of the Pokemon games, I mean, I grew up with those games and it never wanted to make me gamble. America is becoming a nation of whining parents that want everything "Child Friendly." It's your job as a parent to teach your kids that gambling is stupid and if the kid grows up and wants to gamble, it's their own damn choice.

[goatdan]

The argument isn't to remove Pokemon or baseball cards from store shelves. There can still be rare cards but the argument is to remove the chance aspect by making it clear which cards are in which packs.

I'm not sure what to think about that. Yeah, part of the fun of opening a pack was seeing what you got. On the other hand, it was always a bitch and a half when you got nothing but doubles. As a kid, I probably would have actually liked to know what was inside before paying for it.

What would the point be then in having rare or chase cards? Oh, I want this super rare card, so I'll just go through all the packs until I find that card. Then, all the rest of these packs will just sit here.

All that would happen is that the super rare cards would become common, and the rest of the cards would be garbage. Sure, as a kid you might not have liked getting a pack of cards that had a bunch of doubles in it, but I also know that back as a kid (and still today), they sell whole sets of cards MUCH cheaper than what it would cost to buy them as packs and assemble a set. As a for instance, I saw some cards at Target not too long ago, the 700+ set was $50, the packs for 10 cards were $2.99. So, you could purchase the entire thing for $50, or you could get about 170 cards for the same price.

But there isn't a difference. Paying for a chance to win = gambling, whether it's for money or redemption tickets.

It's how you define both chance and win. As for chance, again -- there is an aspect of skill to all those games. There are not any redemption titles that operate like slot machines do -- where you simply put in a coin, press a button and hope for the best. All of the redemption games have some sort of skill to them.

For cards, you're paying for cards. If you get a card that just so happens to be worth more, it isn't defined by the company that was selling them that way, it is defined that way by you or other people. Again, this isn't like a lottery where you are taking a ticket defined by the state, looking at it and determining that it is a winner, as defined again by the state.

If everyone today decided that the Randy Wolf baseball card was going to be the best baseball card to get from some set, it would suddenly be the best. Doesn't matter if you don't know who Randy Wolf is -- the aftermarket determines that.

[InsaneDavid]

Are you sure she's not talking about this place instead? - http://www.chuckycheeze.com.mx/

There used to be a commercial for it on YouTube years ago but it seems to have been removed... shame.

EDIT: FOUND IT! http://www.mytopclip.com/play.php?vid=17870

[leatherrebel5150]

The argument isn't to remove Pokemon or baseball cards from store shelves. There can still be rare cards but the argument is to remove the chance aspect by making it clear which cards are in which packs.

I'm not sure what to think about that. Yeah, part of the fun of opening a pack was seeing what you got. On the other hand, it was always a bitch and a half when you got nothing but doubles. As a kid, I probably would have actually liked to know what was inside before paying for it.



But there isn't a difference. Paying for a chance to win = gambling, whether it's for money or redemption tickets.

That's why it's worth bringing up at the very least. Because if you think about it, it is pretty flimsy to say "gambling is illegal for anybody under 18...unless they stand to win anything except money." It may not be highly destructive but that doesn't make it any less flimsy. What's so special about money as a reward that makes it off limits while everything else is just fine?

Hell, flip it around and you could argue that if playing for tickets or tokens is ok then so is playing for cash. No age limits in casinos?

I'm not saying that going to Chuck E. Cheese will turn kids into compulsive gamblers. What I'm saying is that the widespread belief that kids are not allowed to gamble is flat out false.

So basically what I'm getting from you is that you have a fear of possible risk.

No risk = No reward

Really lady, Chuckie Cheese has been around since what the early 80's and no one else has complained about this ever. I'm sorry but people are getting a bit too ridiculous when it comes to stupid shit like this. I mean it's like Nintendo taking the slot machine game corner out of the Pokemon games, I mean, I grew up with those games and it never wanted to make me gamble. America is becoming a nation of whining parents that want everything "Child Friendly." It's your job as a parent to teach your kids that gambling is stupid and if the kid grows up and wants to gamble, it's their own damn choice.

YES!!!

[TonyTheTiger]

All of the redemption games have some sort of skill to them.

That's not entirely true. You know those machines where you put in a quarter and out pops a plastic egg or some capsule that has a random prize inside? Well, while you're guaranteed to get a prize, you aren't necessarily guaranteed to get the prize you wanted.

So basically what I'm getting from you is that you have a fear of possible risk.

My own aversion? Not especially. I play the ponies once in a while and have poker parties just like many other red blooded Americans. And I've been playing poker long before I was 18.

But let's not pretend that what goes on in Boardwalk arcades and Las Vegas casinos are worlds apart. If you want to justify the kid games as "whatever, it's not hurting anybody" go right ahead. I keep saying that I don't think it's woefully destructive. But don't try to justify it by saying it's not gambling.

The line we draw that makes it ok for kids to play for redemption tickets (a limited form of currency themselves) and makes it not ok for kids to play for U.S. currency is fairly arbitrary. I'm not necessarily advocating outlawing boardwalk arcades. Nor am I necessarily advocating granting minors full access to Atlantic City casinos. But I am pointing out that the difference between the two is very small. Maybe the small difference is enough to justify drawing that line. But I don't know.