Pennsylvania Court Weighs Future of Skill-Game Machines
Pennsylvania’s long-running dispute over “skill games” reached a decisive point as the state Supreme Court reviewed arguments that could influence the fate of thousands of machines operating outside the casino sector. The hearing examined whether these devices function as legitimate games requiring player ability or whether they operate as unlicensed gambling machines under state law. A ruling is expected to clarify an issue that has shaped the state’s gaming environment for more than a decade.
State Argues Chance Drives Game Outcomes
During the hearing, attorneys for the attorney general’s office and the Department of Revenue said the machines rely mainly on random results. They argued that players often continue from one round to the next without using the additional challenge that manufacturers describe as the skill element. According to the state, the path to this stage is unclear, and many players might not realize it exists. As reported by the Altoona Mirror, the state maintained that luck, not skill, determines the outcome for most users.
Industry representatives disagreed. A lawyer for Capital Vending, whose devices were seized in a 2019 Dauphin County sweep, told the court that earlier rulings had already determined that skilled players could complete the memory-based bonus round. He said the legal test focuses on whether skill determines success, arguing that the machines differ from slot machines that operate within payout ranges set by the Gaming Control Board. He also noted that players can win back more than they wager, placing the devices outside the legal definition of casino slots.
Casinos Point to Safety and Revenue Concerns
The dispute unfolds during rising tensions between regulated casinos and the unregulated skill-game market. Casinos emphasize that they pay significant taxes and operate under strict oversight while unregulated machines continue to expand. Industry concerns intensified after a Philadelphia jury found a leading manufacturer liable for a fatal 2020 robbery tied to one of the devices. Jurors concluded that the absence of standard safety features, including automated payout systems, increased risks for store employees.
Supporters of the machines argue that they provide important income for small businesses and say lawmakers, not courts, should decide how the devices are governed. Attempts to introduce taxes or regulations have repeatedly failed, leaving thousands of machines operating without clear rules. The forthcoming Supreme Court decision is expected to provide long-awaited clarity on an issue shaping Pennsylvania’s gambling sector for more than a decade.
Recommended