Hanover judge rules Queen of Virginia skill games are legal, delivering win to small businesses
The new cashless skill game terminals made by Georgia-based Pace-O-Matic don't require coins or tokens to play. (Image courtesy of Pace-O-Matic)
A Hanover County judge handed down a ruling Wednesday that could reshape the future of skill games in Virginia, siding with a convenience store owner who faced criminal charges for operating several Queen of Virginia (QVS2) skill machines.
Judge Hugh Campbell of the Hanover County General District Court dismissed the case against David Bogese, owner of the Breez-In Mart, after finding that the QVS2 devices at his store did not meet the legal definition of illegal gambling machines under state law.
The ruling marks a significant victory for small business owners across the commonwealth who have fought to keep the machines in their stores amid legal ambiguity and political pressure from the casino industry.
'It feels good to get this decisive ruling today defending the right for small businesses to operate within the law,' Bogese said after Wednesday's hearing. 'Today is a victory not just for our case and our business, but for small businesses across the commonwealth to take part in our free market and against the overreaches of government. I am looking forward to getting back to business as usual.'
Bogese had been charged with a misdemeanor under Virginia Code §18.2-331, which prohibits possession of an 'illegal gambling device.'
The charge stemmed from the presence of four QVS2 skill games, developed by Georgia-based software firm Pace-O-Matic, at his store in Hanover County. Prosecutors argued that the machines violated the state's gambling statute, which bans devices that require players to insert a coin, bill, ticket, token, or similar object to activate gameplay.
But the defense countered that the QVS2 terminals in Bogese's store did not require the insertion of any such object and were, therefore, fully compliant with Virginia law.
Attorneys Ryan McDougle and Bill Stanley — both of whom are also Republican members of the Virginia Senate — represented Bogese. They moved to dismiss the charge through a motion to strike the commonwealth's evidence, asserting that prosecutors had failed to prove the QVS2 machines met the statutory definition of an illegal gambling device.
Judge Campbell ruled in favor of the defense, applying the 'rule of lenity' — a legal doctrine requiring that ambiguities in criminal law be interpreted in the defendant's favor. He found that because the QVS2 machine lacked any requirement for players to insert currency or objects into the machine, it did not qualify as a prohibited device under the law.
The judge also found that the statute itself was too vague, creating uncertainty for business owners trying to follow the law. His ruling echoed concerns raised repeatedly in recent years by small business advocates and gaming law experts.
A spokesman for Attorney General Jason Miyares, whose office was investigating the legality of QVS2 machines, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The QVS2 terminals represent a redesigned version of the Queen of Virginia Skill games that had become popular in bars, restaurants and convenience stores across the state.
Unlike earlier models, which included slots-style mechanics and coin operation, the QVS2 machines are entirely cashless. Players must check in with a store attendant before starting a game, and no coin, cash, or other tangible object is inserted into the device.
The games were launched in Virginia in August 2024 by Pace-O-Matic, which said it developed the new model specifically to comply with Virginia law. The company also voluntarily raised the minimum age to play the games from 18 to 21 in anticipation of possible legislative changes.
Prior to rollout, the company consulted with several prominent legal experts, including former Virginia Attorneys General Jerry Kilgore and Tony Troy, who — along with regulatory attorneys Jason Hicks and Stephen Piepgrass — issued a joint legal opinion stating that the games were legal under current statutes.
At the time, the QVS2 devices were still in a beta-testing phase across Virginia, with limited deployment intended to assess their performance and regulatory fit. It is unknown how many of the machines are currently operating statewide.
'Pace-O-Matic has consistently maintained that our QVS2 skill game is fully compliant with the plain language of the law in Virginia. We have never and will never operate outside the confines of the law, and this ruling affirms that,' Pace-O-Matic spokeswoman Rachel Albritton said in a statement Thursday.
'While this is a significant legal victory for Pace-O-Matic, the real winners are the hundreds of small businesses across the commonwealth, many of which are family-owned mom-and-pop shops, that depend on income from skill games to survive. Furthermore, this legal win underscores Pace-O-Matic's dedication to fostering a responsible gaming environment while providing legal gaming options that support small businesses.'
Skill games had existed in Virginia for decades in a largely unregulated space, but that changed in 2020 when the General Assembly passed legislation banning the devices. The move came amid concerns from some lawmakers and casino developers that the widespread use of skill games could undercut the profitability of newly approved casino projects.
During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the state granted a temporary reprieve, allowing skill games to remain in operation for one year to help small businesses survive the economic downturn. That reprieve expired in 2021. The Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority, which had been tasked with temporary oversight, ended enforcement efforts the same year, leaving skill game operators in legal limbo.
In the absence of clear regulations, businesses continued to operate the games until late 2023, when the Supreme Court of Virginia reinstated the state's ban, reversing a lower court decision that had paused enforcement. That ruling once again cast uncertainty over whether businesses using newer skill games — like the QVS2 — were in violation of the law.
Earlier this year, during the 2025 legislative session, Virginia lawmakers weighed a series of proposals aimed at bringing regulation and structure to the skill game industry.
Among them was Senate Bill 1322, introduced by Sen. Bill DeSteph, R-Virginia Beach, which proposed a $1,200 monthly tax per gaming device. The bill would have directed 70% of the resulting revenue to a new Elementary and Secondary Education Fund, with the remainder split among local governments, infrastructure projects and programs addressing gambling addiction. The legislation was ultimately referred to the budget process for further discussion.
DeSteph defended the measure by pointing to a previous effort under former Gov. Ralph Northam that generated $138 million in revenue from 11,000 machines. 'This is the same model, to keep it simple,' DeSteph said at the time, noting added safeguards such as ABC-issued tracking stickers and geolocation key cards to enhance accountability.
Despite support from some lawmakers who saw the legislation as a way to raise revenue while introducing regulatory oversight, similar efforts faced resistance from Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who vetoed related legislation last year.
In a separate effort, Sen. Bryce Reeves, R-Spotsylvania, introduced SB 1287 to create an independent Virginia Gaming Commission that would oversee all forms of legal gambling in the state, excluding the lottery.
The bill envisioned consolidating regulatory authority over casinos, sports betting and charitable gaming into a single agency, absorbing staff from existing state departments to improve oversight and reduce redundancy.
Supporters framed the proposal as a step toward modernizing and unifying Virginia's gaming regulation.
'While I'm not a particular fan of gaming, I also face the reality that Virginia is becoming a gaming state,' said McDougle, addressing the Senate committee reviewing the measure. 'We ought to have a little bit of a focus on how we're doing that and make sure that we're making good decisions.'
Ultimately, neither proposal made it into the revised budget lawmakers sent to Youngkin in February. While the governor has expressed support for establishing a gaming commission, he remains opposed to legalizing electronic skill games and has yet to endorse any plan that would bring them fully into a regulated market.
How Wednesday's ruling in Hanover — which marked the first time a Virginia court has addressed the legality of the new QVS2 models in a criminal context — will impact future legislative efforts, remains to be seen.
The Virginia Merchants and Amusement Coalition (VA MAC), which represents store owners and game operators, issued a statement calling the ruling 'a clear victory for small businesses.'
'Many of our members are operating legal QVS2 skill games as a means of supplemental income to keep their doors open,' said VA MAC President Rich Kelly. 'Skill games give local small businesses, many of which are family-owned, additional income to pay wages, make improvements, and in some cases, keep the lights on.'
He added, 'While we are thrilled with the outcome of this case, we continue to look forward to working with legislators on a solution to regulate and tax skill games in the future.'
Stanley, one of the two state attorneys representing Bogese, echoed that sentiment, framing the ruling as a blow to what he characterized as 'casino-driven' efforts to squeeze small businesses out of Virginia's emerging gaming industry. He said that the ruling should instill confidence in all small business owners who operate or want to operate skill games legally.
'We've shown that the law, as written, does not prohibit these machines. Now it's time for lawmakers to bring clarity through responsible regulation.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
4 Different Levels of FIRE Retirement and How To Pick the Right One for You
FIRE, short for Financial Independence, Retire Early, is more than a one-size-fits-all movement. 'The goal of FIRE is to hit the level of financial security and independence so that you can retire before the traditional retirement age (usually around 65 years old),' said Meg K. Wheeler, CPA, and founder of The Equitable Money Project. Read More: Find Out: Wheeler explained, 'This is done by getting rid of all debt and saving and investing enough to generate earnings that will fund your expenses in retirement. Most FIRE followers will aim for saving 25 [times] of their expected annual retirement expenses.' Whether someone dreams of retiring in their 30s or wants the freedom to leave a stressful job early, here are the four different levels of FIRE retirement and how to pick the right one for you. LeanFIRE is the most minimalist version of early retirement, where individuals save just enough to cover their essential living expenses, typically between $25,000 and $40,000 per year. It's ideal for those willing to embrace a frugal lifestyle in exchange for maximum freedom. 'If you're a minimalist who genuinely loves simple living, DIY home fixes, and free activities and hobbies for fun, this could be a good fit,' said Lawrence Klayman, founding partner of Klayman Toskes PLLC. 'You might also consider geographic arbitrage. For example, instead of retiring in Florida, you could live in lower-cost Georgia, with its similar beaches and weather.' Discover Next: Traditional FIRE aims to accumulate sufficient savings to support a modest, middle-class lifestyle without needing to work. It's a balanced approach for those who want early retirement without making extreme sacrifices or excessive luxuries. 'FIRE, or 'regular' FIRE, is the middle path,' said Jason Breck, owner of 40 North Media. Breck said he is implementing the FIRE Method. 'You're financially independent with room to breathe. You can say yes to a spontaneous trip, a nice dinner out, or upgrading your phone without guilt. That usually means a $1 million to $2 million nest egg and spending between $40,000 and $80,000 a year.' Breck explained, 'FIRE fits people who want balance. Maybe you're raising kids or just want a little margin in your life. You're still mindful of money, but you're not saying no to every latte or family vacation.' ChubbyFIRE offers a more comfortable version of early retirement. It's ideal for those who want financial freedom but aren't interested in strict frugality. 'Think of this as the balanced approach,' Wheeler said. 'The goal is still to save and invest enough to retire early, but without sacrificing all of your joy today, or in the future. Folks following the ChubbyFIRE method focus on balancing their debt pay down and investing while still spending money on things they want today, and they set themselves up for a more moderate lifestyle in retirement.' FatFIRE is the most financially ambitious version of early retirement, designed for those who want to stop working early without giving up a high-end lifestyle. It typically requires a large investment portfolio and is best suited for high earners who can save aggressively. Isheeta Borkar, owner and author of the blog Travelicious Couple, with her husband, said the couple has been targeting FIRE for some time now. They have been traveling slowly around the world. 'FatFIRE is living it up,' Borkar said. 'Think five-star trips, expensive dinners, and the freedom to say 'yes' to pretty much anything that calls to us. It's a little difficult to achieve for most.' Choosing the right FIRE path begins with understanding the numbers and tracking current expenses to determine how much is truly needed to retire. It's also important to assess risk tolerance; while LeanFIRE may sound appealing, it can feel too restrictive over time. 'FIRE often comes with low-income years,' Breck said. 'Take advantage by converting traditional IRAs to Roths while your tax rate is minimal.' Life stage matters, too, as FatFIRE might be unrealistic in one's 20s but more attainable by their 40s. Most importantly, individuals should think beyond the numbers: what kind of life do they actually want to wake up to each day? 'Want to upgrade to FIRE or ChubbyFIRE?' Breck said. 'I tell people to try spending like that for six months. If your portfolio holds up and your values still align, step up.' More From GOBankingRates 8 Common Mistakes Retirees Make With Their Social Security Checks This article originally appeared on 4 Different Levels of FIRE Retirement and How To Pick the Right One for You Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Cosmopolitan
an hour ago
- Cosmopolitan
What did Nick tell Paul in episode 3 of Ginny & Georgia season 3?
*Spoilers alert* Ginny & Georgia fans, season three is *finally* here. After what seems like forever (specifically over two years), our favourite chaotic mother and daughter duo are back. And this time, things are a lot more intense. For those who need a little refresher, season two ended with Georgia getting arrested for the murder of Tom Fuller... On her wedding day... Where she was marrying the mayor. Dramatic, we know. Which meant that season three was obviously going to revolve around the aftermath, and whether or not she's found guilty of the crime. During episode three, there's a brief - but important - scene between Paul Randolph (the mayor and Georgia's new hubby) and Nick Throop, his assistant. While in Paul's office, Nick seemingly discloses some serious (and potentially incriminating) information about Georgia. Although viewers are intentionally not privy to the conversation, it's clear from Paul's expression that it's not the news he was expecting to hear. Unfortunately, the exact discussion is never revealed. But for the ultimate Ginny & Georgia sleuths, it's not hard to figure out. Cast your mind back to the previous seasons, when Nick meets 'Jesse,' a real estate agent new to Wellsbury. The two embark on a relationship, but it's not long before Nick discovers Jesse's true identity: he's a private investigator named Gabriel, hired to infiltrate Georgia's inner circle and expose her secrets. As the pair grow closer, Gabriel shares his findings with Nick, who becomes more sceptical of Georgia, and is eventually a key figure in her arrest. Fast forward to season three now, and after Nick's bombshell, Paul has been acting distant with Georgia. Previously, he had been adamant his wife was innocent, working tirelessly to clear her name. So why have things now changed? During the beginning of Georgia's trial at the end of episode four, Gabriel is called as a witness for the prosecution, much to her surprise. The scene ends with Gabriel declaring to the jury that he thinks they're dealing with a serial killer, having reason to suspect Georgia murdered her last two husbands. (If you remember, he was actually hired by Kenny's ex-wife - Georgia's second husband - to look into his death.) So, when you think back to Paul's closed-off behaviour towards Georgia, it's obvious that Nick told him about the other husbands. Which led Paul to wonder: if she's capable of killing her other lovers, could he be next? In the words of Pam Shipman: "It's all the drama, I just love it!" Season 3 of Ginny & Georgia is now streaming on Netflix.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Graham wants to punish Russia with ‘bone-crushing' sanctions. It could backfire.
Sen. Lindsey Graham has pledged that his expansive sanctions bill would be 'bone crushing' for the Russian economy. But if enacted, the South Carolina Republican's proposal to impose 500 percent tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy would effectively cut the U.S. off from some of the world's largest economies — including allies in Europe. 'A 500 percent tariff is essentially a hard decoupling,' said Kevin Book, managing director of Clear View Energy Partners, an energy research firm. Graham appeared to acknowledge as much on Wednesday, when he proposed a broad carve-out for countries that provide aid to Ukraine. This exemption would spare the European Union, which continues to import almost 20 percent of its gas from Russia. But experts remain skeptical that the sky-high tariffs proposed in the Sanctioning Russia Act are in any way feasible. India and China buy roughly 70 percent of Russian energy exports, but several other countries that buy any oil, gas or uranium from Moscow — and aren't included in the carve-out — could also be exposed to tariffs under the bill. The United States, which is still reliant on imports of enriched uranium from Russia to fuel its nuclear reactors, could also run afoul of the bill. Edward Fishman, a senior researcher with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said countries in the crosshairs of the bill would struggle to halt their imports of Russian energy overnight. Tariffs of 500 percent on imports of goods made in China would send prices soaring, disrupt supply chains and could drive up U.S. unemployment to recessionary levels. Most likely, it would lead to a screeching halt in U.S. trade with China. 'It would hurt Americans quite a bit,' Fishman said. The legislation's goal, co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is to starve Russia's war economy, which continues to earn hundreds of billions of dollars from energy exports. There is widespread support for the overall objective, with 82 senators signing on to Graham's bill so far, and growing support for a companion bill in the House. The bill is likely to change significantly as it moves through Congress and in consultations with the Trump administration, said Matt Zweig, senior policy director of FDD Action, a nonprofit advocacy organization affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It may also take a long time. 'With sanctions legislation, you're also normally dealing with iterative processes where you would want to go through every nook and cranny,' Zweig said. Still, the widespread bipartisan support for the legislation suggests there is a high degree of support among lawmakers for tougher action on Russia. 'What Congress may be doing is pressuring the executive branch to act,' said Adam Smith, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn. 'There is a sense in the Senate that more sanctions on Russia need to be imposed, or ought to be imposed,' added Smith, who was a senior adviser to the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control during the Obama administration. Graham, the bill's most vocal Republican advocate, said as much in a meeting with reporters in Paris over the weekend, where he described the bill as 'one of the most draconian sanctions bills ever written.' 'The Senate is pissed that Russia is playing a game at our expense and the world's expense. And we are willing to do something we haven't been willing to do before — and that is go after people that have been helping Putin,' Graham said. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed concerns that the bill is too harsh. 'We need to make Putin understand he has to stop screwing around and come to the table. But we also need to follow it up and make clear we will be tough,' she said. Not everyone agrees. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has long been skeptical about the effectiveness of sanctions to change the behavior of U.S. adversaries, bashed the bill on Monday as 'literally the most ill-conceived bill I've ever seen in Washington,' he said. 'It would be a worldwide embargo on 36 countries.' Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine have made little progress on peace talks. Officials from both countries met in Istanbul on Monday and agreed to a further prisoner swap, but failed to achieve any major breakthroughs. Graham and Blumenthal visited Ukraine, France and Germany during last week's congressional recess, where they discussed the sanctions bill, as well as efforts to push Russia to the negotiating table. The proposal has been welcomed by European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, who met with Graham in Berlin on Monday. 'Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else,' Von der Leyen said in a statement. 'These steps, taken together with U.S. measures, would sharply increase the joint impact of our sanctions.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Monday that the chamber could take up the legislation later this month. Republican senators have said they would like to secure the approval of the White House before moving forward. The proposed use of blanket tariffs to target countries that continue to do business with Russia's energy sector is novel and appears to be pitched to Trump's interests. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump viewed sanctions as 'a tool in his toolbox,' but declined to comment about his position on the bill. Trump appeared to be inching closer toward supporting the bill in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, which linked to an op-ed in The Washington Post supporting the legislation. Speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump indicated he wanted lawmakers to secure his approval before moving forward with the bill. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do,' he said, describing the legislation as a 'harsh bill.' The president has liberally wielded tariffs to advance his foreign policy agenda, but his implementation has been spotty. Wall Street has even adopted a trading strategy referencing Trump's capriciousness called TACO, which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' Tariffs of 145 percent on China, imposed in April, lasted a month before being dramatically scaled back to make way for trade talks, which have so far failed to secure a breakthrough. As it stands, the bill includes some levers that Trump could pull to forestall the tariffs, requiring the president to make a formal determination that Russia is refusing to negotiate or has violated any future peace agreement. Nahal Toosi, Joshua Berlinger, Phelim Kine and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.
