A couple of years ago, Sam A. Antar – who’s addicted to gambling – tried to sue MGM Resorts and BetMGM for allegedly exploiting his diagnosed addiction.

The court ended up throwing the case out, but Antar has this week asked the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to revive the dismissed claims. He alleges the casinos preyed on his addiction by offering a series of financial incentives and gifts through direct communication, including an overwhelming number of promotional text messages.

Videos by VICE

Antar argues that the casinos knew he was a gambling addict, and his legal team believes MGM should be held responsible for his $30 million in gambling losses, alleging its actions enabled and exploited his compulsive behavior.

US Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas’ first response was essentially: even if Antar’s case holds water, could a remedy for his claims actually be worked out?

“Wouldn’t he have lost all this money anyway because he was a gambling addict?” Bibas, a Trump-appointed judge, asked bluntly. “How can we ascertain how much of his loss was the defense cost?”

Sure, Bibas said, it’s one thing to calculate how much Antar lost, but proving how much of that loss came from what he called the “unconscionable practice of playing into addiction” was a whole different story, adding that it’s on Antar to come up with that number.

Attorney Matthew McGill, who’s representing MGM Resorts International and Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, argued that Antar’s own description of his gambling addiction — where he would “continue depositing and betting until there were no funds remaining” — suggests he would have gambled away all of his cash regardless of the casinos’ incentives.

“That is how the plaintiff’s counsel himself characterizes the nature of his addiction,” McGill said. “That forecloses any causal link to the enticements that he targets here.”

Representing Antar, attorney Matthew Litt argued that the casinos’ targeted conversations with Antar constitute a prosecutable act.

“It’s not passive, it’s active,” Litt said. “It’s not that they fail to do something. It’s that they use their product in a way they knew to be dangerous, and the plaintiff was harmed. It’s no different than the salesperson of a toaster oven.”

The panel of three judges has not yet indicated how or when they will rule. However, if they do rule in Antar’s favor, it could signal a major shift in holding gambling establishments liable for addiction.