![]() Newsletter Signup
Stay informed with the
NEW Casino City Times newsletter! |
Gaming News
Judge Orders Seized Slot Returned to Ameristar20 May 2003by ROD SMITH KANSAS CITY -- A Kansas City judge has ordered a slot machine at the center of a class-action lawsuit returned to the Ameristar Casino Kansas City. Circuit Court Judge Larry Harman had ordered the reel-type slot machine seized to protect evidence in the legal case and to facilitate an investigation by Gaming Labs International. Kansas City attorney Steve Small alleges in his lawsuit that the seized slot machine had spun millions of times without ever paying a jackpot even though the machine's posted odds indicate it should pay a jackpot once in every 373,248 spins. The lawsuit alleges the slot machine, manufactured by Reno-based International Game Technology, contains a chip that was deliberately designed to "cheat" the public. In the two-hour hearing last week, Harman determined that the data from the machine had been preserved and the slot could be returned to the casino. "We would have preferred for the court to have required that the machine be sequestered to make sure there were no hardware changes made to it, but I believe the court's prior order put them on notice any spoilation of evidence would be treated severely," Small said. IGT, which is named in the suit, declined to comment on the pending litigation. Kathy Callaghan, spokeswoman for Ameristar, which is also named in Small's suit, said Monday: "We continue in our position that the allegations in Small's complaint are completely unfounded." She said the SPLUS8788 chip at the center of the controversy does not even control the slot machine's gaming functions, but only its sound and light effects. Ameristar said in a motion filed last week that Small's allegations were "so outrageous and so unsubstantiated" that it plans to seek sanctions against him. Harold Bailey, spokesman for the Missouri Gaming Commission, another target of the suit, said the machine in question was examined at Small's request months before the lawsuit was filed. "We thought the allegations were baseless," he said. "We did everything in our procedures when he complained and found nothing operationally wrong with the machine." |