Judge dismisses Running Aces lawsuit against 5 other Minnesota casinos
The lawsuit was filed last spring under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, and named 39 current and former executives and employees at Mystic Lake, Little Six, Grand Casino (Hinckley and Mille Lacs) and Treasure Island Resort Casino as defendants.
It alleged the casinos were offering games – such as Three Card Poker and Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em – not permitted under state compacts set up through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988.
But U.S. District Court Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz dismissed the case Tuesday, saying that the current and former employees named did not adequately represent the tribal nations, and as a result the tribes could be negatively impacted by the ruling in a lawsuit in which they are not listed as defendants.
However, the judge also acknowledges that sovereign immunity protects tribes from lawsuits such as that filed by Running Aces.
"Setting that aside, even if Running Aces's claims have merit, the remaining ... factors – especially the Tribes' sovereign immunity and the magnitude of the prejudice that the Tribes could suffer from a judgment entered in this case – weigh in favor of dismissal. Indeed, courts frequently find that an absent tribe's sovereign immunity outweighs the plaintiff's lack of an alternative forum."
"As noted, the gaming that is challenged in this lawsuit is of enormous economic importance to the absent Tribes, and protecting the economic sustainability of tribes is a primary goal of IGRA specifically and federal Indian policy generally... The Court therefore has little trouble concluding that the Tribes' interests in protecting a critical source of funds and jobs outweigh Running Aces's interest in a forum for its claims of competitive injury," it continues.
The suit was dismissed without prejudice, meaning a similar lawsuit can be filed in the future, and Running Aces President and CEO, Taro Ito, told Bring Me The News he does intend to file again.
He said he was "surprised" to hear of the judge's ruling, claiming the dismissal related to "procedural issues" rather than the merit of his casino's case. He also said the judge's dismissal highlights there is little legal recourse for complaints against tribal casinos, saying tribes can simply claim sovereign immunity.
"Obviously it's disappointing because we feel very strongly about our case," he said. "We'll take this to the Supreme Court if we have to."
BMTN has reached out to Grand Casino, Mystic Lake, Treasure Island and Little Six for comment on the outcome but haven't heard back.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Tom's Guide
10 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
Is it illegal to circumvent age verification checks?
With the introduction of the Online Safety Act in the UK, citizens will now need to verify their age in order to access explicit content. Age verification techniques can vary between platforms, from scanning a photo ID to inputting your payment card details. While there are now an estimated 5 million age checks being completed every day in the UK since the OSA's introduction on July 25, 2025, not all UK citizens are willing to comply with the act, citing concerns regarding data privacy and safety. Some are turning to workarounds, like the best VPNs, to circumvent the age verification checks and avoid submitting their personal or sensitive information in order to access content restricted by the Online Safety Act. The Online Safety Act itself requires websites and social media platforms to introduce greater controls on the content hosted on their platforms, including requiring age checks to view adult content. As per the Act, all "search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other" must abide by the Online Safety Act and ensure that appropriate age restrictions are set, to avoid children accessing harmful content. For sites or platforms that host explicit content, this must include "technically accurate, robust, reliable and fair" age verification checks. This includes sites such as Reddit, X and even Spotify have introduced age checks for users. It is also illegal for sites and platforms to promote circumventing the OSA, with legal action already being taken against a site which directly told users to use a VPN in order to get around the age verification check. If any sites violate the law, they can be fined up to £18m (roughly $24m) or 10% of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater. In the case of more serious violations, they could face court-imposed sanctions from third-parties like internet providers leading to the entire site or platform being blocked or restricted in the UK. So, while the OSA has clear rules for websites and social media platforms, it does not introduce any laws for individual citizens. So, if UK citizens do choose to use a VPN to avoid age verification checks, this is not illegal. In fact, the head of OFCOM, Melanie Dawes, told MPs in May that 'individual users can use VPNs" as "nothing in the Act blocks it", although she did point out that OFCOM takes a "very dim view" of the promotion of using VPNs to circumvent age verification. However, while the OSA does not provide any guidelines for internet users themselves, members of the UK government have made statements regarding VPN use to circumvent age verification. Labour Party Tech Secretary Peter Kyle has said that the Online Safety Act "marks the most significant step forward in child safety since the internet was created" and that "age verification keeps children safe". Kyle also stated via X that those who want to overturn the Online Safety Act are "on the side of predators". While some concerns were raised about the UK government banning VPNs due to their ability to circumvent age checks, Kyle has also said that there are no plans to ban VPNs. We test and review VPN services in the context of legal recreational uses. For example: 1. Accessing a service from another country (subject to the terms and conditions of that service). 2. Protecting your online security and strengthening your online privacy when abroad. We do not support or condone the illegal or malicious use of VPN services. Consuming pirated content that is paid-for is neither endorsed nor approved by Future Publishing.
Tom's Guide
a day ago
- Tom's Guide
An extra 5 million age checks a day are being completed thanks to the UK's Online Safety Act
New data suggests there has been an additional five million age verification checks every day in the UK since the introduction of the Online Safety Act. Sites hosting content deemed harmful for under 18s must now verify the age of visitors. But many see this as a significant privacy and cybersecurity risk – and have turned to the best VPNs in an attempt to bypass the checks. The Online Safety Act has triggered an important discussion about online privacy and there are strong views from both supporters and critics of the law. Those backing the law, including the UK government, have said it's doing a vital job at protecting children online. However, the law's opponents have said it comes with significant cybersecurity risks and compromises online privacy. One cybersecurity expert called it a "disaster waiting to happen." According to the Age Verification Providers Association (AVPA) there has been a significant increase in daily age verification checks online. As reported in the Guardian, the AVPA's Executive Director, Iain Corby said: "As a result of new codes under the Online Safety Act coming into force on Friday, we have seen an additional five million age checks on a daily basis, as UK-based internet users seek to access sites that are age-restricted." The AVPA said it couldn't share a baseline comparison to this figure, but some sites introduced age verification checks before the Online Safety Act became law. Reddit, X, and Spotify are just some of the sites you might have to verify your age to access all its content. But there have also been reports of overreach and content not traditionally seen as harmful being blocked. The UK government said "platforms should not arbitrarily block or remove content and instead must take a risk-based, proportionate approach to child safety duties." It went on to say "the act is not designed to censor political debate and does not require platforms to age gate any content other than those which present the most serious risks to children." However research by the BBC found that reports on the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine have been blocked as a result of the Online Safety Act. There has been vocal opposition to the law and a petition demanding the UK government repeals the act is approaching 500,000 signatures. The UK government has said it wouldn't repeal the act, adding that it is "working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections." "Proportionality is a core principle of the act and is in-built into its duties," the UK government said. "As regulator for the online safety regime, OFCOM must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services when recommending steps providers can take to comply with requirements." MP Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, is one of the law's biggest supporters. He said the law "marks the most significant step forward in child safety since the internet was created" and that "age verification keeps children safe." However Kyle has also made controversial comments towards opponents of the law and in a tweet said you "are on the side of predators" if you wanted to overturn the Online Safety Act. The law has received support from an array of children's charities and YouGov research found that 69% of Britons are in favor of age verification checks. However, this is down from the 80% support recorded prior to the law's introduction and only 26% had encountered age checks online. Furthermore, 64% said it would be "not very / not at all effective" in preventing under 18s from accessing harmful content. Regardless of the positives, and the well intentioned nature of the law, there are fundamental privacy and cybersecurity concerns that need to be addressed. People don't feel comfortable handing over sensitive personal information to third-party age check providers such as AgeGO, Persona, and Yoti. Each provider has a different approach to data security, with some deleting it straight away and others holding it for some period of time. Any data being stored is at risk of a breach and the impact of one could be catastrophic. The recent Tea app breach exposed the ID of thousands of women in the US – an age verification provider breach could be even worse. Major VPN providers surged up the UK Apple App Store charts as people looked for ways to avoid age verification checks. Suspect free VPNs also rose in popularity and put people's data at risk in different ways. These privacy and cybersecurity concerns must be appropriately addressed, and not cast aside, should the UK government want the Online Safety Act to succeed in the best way it can. We test and review VPN services in the context of legal recreational uses. For example: 1. Accessing a service from another country (subject to the terms and conditions of that service). 2. Protecting your online security and strengthening your online privacy when abroad. We do not support or condone the illegal or malicious use of VPN services. Consuming pirated content that is paid-for is neither endorsed nor approved by Future Publishing.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Laura Loomer Files New Supreme Court Petition—'Accountability Is Coming'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Conservative firebrand Laura Loomer is going after social media giant Meta, claiming in a new filing to the U.S. Supreme Court that it and another large company were part of an alleged criminal conspiracy to censor conservative voices like hers, leading to unsuccessful election outcomes. Newsweek reached out to Loomer and Meta for comment. Why It Matters In late 2022, a treasure trove of emails now known as being part of the "Twitter files" questioned whether politicians and others of particular political persuasions were receiving due or unjust treatment on social media as a means to suppress free speech and nudge conversation. That was part of a broader public pushback against social media companies that were uniquely employing different fact-check methods, notably during the COVID pandemic and surrounding major elections—especially the 2016 and 2020 presidential contests. In January of this year, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg followed Elon Musk's lead by announcing a rollback of its censorship policies to become a free speech platform, saying, "The recent elections feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech." What To Know Loomer, an outspoken voice on social media, wrote Monday on X, formerly Twitter, that she filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case against Meta, Procter & Gamble and others. The Procter & Gamble portion of the claim alleges that the company provided Meta, then Facebook, with a list of conservatives who should have their speech suppressed. Newsweek reached out to Procter & Gamble for comment. "New evidence, like the Twitter Files and Zuckerberg's own admissions to government initiated censorship in support of the Democrats and against President Trump, reveals coordinated efforts to silence political speech and ruin the lives of those Big Tech deemed unworthy of having a voice over their support for President Trump," Loomer wrote on X. Laura Loomer shows her support for then-presidential candidate Donald Trump outside a campaign event for Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, not pictured, at The Vault on October 5, 2023, in Tampa, Florida. Laura Loomer shows her support for then-presidential candidate Donald Trump outside a campaign event for Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, not pictured, at The Vault on October 5, 2023, in Tampa, was unsuccessful in two separate congressional campaigns in Florida: one in 2020 and another in 2022. In 2020, she unsuccessfully faced off against Democrat Lois Frankel in the race to represent Florida's 21st Congressional District. In 2022, she lost in the Republican primary against incumbent Daniel Webster in the race for Florida's 11th District. More recently, she's been closely tied to President Donald Trump—sometimes to the point of Trump's own staffers wanting to keep distance between the pair due to questionable publicity. Trump in the past referred to her as a "free spirit." Loomer, as part of her new legal filing, claims that "nobody has been more viciously attacked," adding that her attorney views it as the most egregious violation of rights against a citizen journalist "that he has ever seen." "This case is about holding Big Tech accountable for racketeering that undermines our elections. ... Everyone involved in what happened to me will pay a price for what they did," she said. "It might not be today, but I promise you, it will happen someday. "You don't just get to pretend like you are supporting conservatives once Trump gets elected and do nothing to make those you damaged whole again." What People Are Saying Zuckerberg, in January: "We're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms." He added that fact-checkers "have just been too politically biased, and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the U.S." What Happens Next It's unclear whether Loomer's request will receive a look from the High Court. While the court is not obligated to hear all cases appealed to it, a writ of certiorari can help it decide which cases should take precedence.
