Guy v Crown Melbourne Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 36

Guy v Crown Melbourne Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 36

The Court found that neither the visual, auditory nor symbol distribution features of the Dolphin Treasure EGM conveyed the pleaded representations to the ordinary or reasonable gambler, nor were such representations misleading or deceptive as alleged under s 18 ACL. The RTP statement may cause fleeting confusion but is not misleading. No conduct by Crown or Aristocrat amounted to unconscionable conduct within the meaning of ss 20 or 21 ACL, especially given the lack of a proven class of 'vulnerable' or 'addicted' individuals suffering a special disadvantage, and the comprehensive regulatory context. Thus, no contravention of the Australian Consumer Law was established and the application...

Parties
Applicant: Shonica Guy; First Respondent: Crown Melbourne Limited (ACN 006 973 262); Second Respondent: Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 001 660 715)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Consumer Law—federal Court Proceeding / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Unconscionable Conduct, Electronic Gaming Machines, Australian Consumer Law, Statutory Interpretation
Consumer Law Commercial Law Gaming/gambling Regulation Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Unconscionable Conduct Electronic Gaming Machines Australian Consumer Law Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 64 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shonica Guy

Applicant

Crown Melbourne Limited (ACN 006 973 262)

First Respondent

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 001 660 715)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Law—federal Court Proceeding / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether features of the Dolphin Treasure electronic gaming machine (EGM) gave rise to representations about odds of winning which are misleading or deceptive under s 18 ACL.
  2. 2 Whether Crown and/or Aristocrat made these representations.
  3. 3 Whether those features or representations involved unconscionable conduct under ss 20 or 21 ACL towards a class of 'vulnerable' or 'addicted' gamblers.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that neither the visual, auditory nor symbol distribution features of the Dolphin Treasure EGM conveyed the pleaded representations to the ordinary or reasonable gambler, nor were such representations misleading or deceptive as alleged under s 18 ACL. The RTP statement may cause fleeting confusion but is not misleading. No conduct by Crown or Aristocrat amounted to unconscionable conduct within the meaning of ss 20 or 21 ACL, especially given the lack of a proven class of 'vulnerable' or 'addicted' individuals suffering a special disadvantage, and the comprehensive regulatory context. Thus, no contravention of the Australian Consumer Law was established and the application...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The parties file a joint minute of proposed orders reflecting the Court's reasons in relation to the s 37AF application, including proposed orders concerning the filing of a generally accessible Court Book, by 4 pm on 9 February 2018.