Isn't this just the stupidest reason not to give her her winnings?
Couldn't they have known that their so-called machine was faulty before letting gamblers use it?
How could they do this to her?
Couldn't they have known that their so-called machine was faulty before letting gamblers use it?
How could they do this to her?
Obviously, our first impression would be "that was a lame and stupid fuc*ing reason!"
However, according to the article, the New York State Gaming Commission itself claimed that the machine really malfunctioned after the series of checking. I think before having that kind of judgment and conclusion, their respective technical staffs take a look at the said malfunctioning machine.
But one thing makes me curious, why there's a disclaimer that if the machine got fuc*ked up, all winnings will be voided? It seems that it's an easy escape goat and can be used as a reason not to give those winnings once the machine gives some big winnings. Aside from that, why it was allowed to put some machines there where there's a chance that they can possibly malfunction why actively used?
But it seems that the case is now settled as per the article, the court already gives the judgment on that case.
