This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/26/pokies-designed-to-deceive-people-lawsuit-against-crown-and-aristocrat-alleges

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Pokies designed to deceive people, lawsuit against Crown and Aristocrat alleges Pokies designed to deceive people, lawsuit against Crown and Aristocrat alleges
(35 minutes later)
Pokies are deliberately designed to deceive people about their prospects of winning, a lawsuit filed against casino giant Crown Melbourne and pokies manufacturer Aristocrat Technologies alleges.Pokies are deliberately designed to deceive people about their prospects of winning, a lawsuit filed against casino giant Crown Melbourne and pokies manufacturer Aristocrat Technologies alleges.
The landmark action was filed to the federal court by law firm Maurice Blackburn on Wednesday morning.The landmark action was filed to the federal court by law firm Maurice Blackburn on Wednesday morning.
Maurice Blackburn principal Jacob Varghese said the firm had previously written to Aristocrat and Crown inviting them to talk about possible solutions to the alleged deceptive design of the machines.Maurice Blackburn principal Jacob Varghese said the firm had previously written to Aristocrat and Crown inviting them to talk about possible solutions to the alleged deceptive design of the machines.
Varghese alleged the machines breach consumer law because of “tricks players aren’t aware of that mislead the player into believing they are winning”. He said he was confident in the action taking on Crown.Varghese alleged the machines breach consumer law because of “tricks players aren’t aware of that mislead the player into believing they are winning”. He said he was confident in the action taking on Crown.
“We are a country governed by laws, not by money,” he said. “There is no amount of money you can throw at an issue to cover up the fact that the design of the game is in breach of Australian consumer law.“We are a country governed by laws, not by money,” he said. “There is no amount of money you can throw at an issue to cover up the fact that the design of the game is in breach of Australian consumer law.
“I think there is a growing understanding in Australia that pokies are a particularly Australian problem with devastating consequences for individuals, families and communities.”“I think there is a growing understanding in Australia that pokies are a particularly Australian problem with devastating consequences for individuals, families and communities.”
A Crown spokeswoman only said that “Crown will vigorously defend any claim”. Guardian Australia has contacted Aristocrat, a UK-based company, for comment. A Crown spokeswoman only said that “Crown will vigorously defend any claim”.
In a statement, Aristocrat said the company had not received any formal communication about the law suit being filed.
“Aristocrat emphatically rejects any suggestion that its games are designed to encourage problem gambling, or in any way fail to comply with all relevant regulations and laws,” the statement said.“Aristocrat has long supported balanced and fact-based harm minimisation initiatives,recognising that these issues are complex and multi-faceted, and require ongoing collaborative effort on the part of industry, regulators and the broader community.”
The case is the first of its kind, and will focus in particular on the design of the “Dolphin Treasure” machine.The case is the first of its kind, and will focus in particular on the design of the “Dolphin Treasure” machine.
A gambling researcher from Monash University’s department of health social science, Charles Livingstone, said the Dolphin machine had been chosen because it represented a typical poker machine and included a number of allegedly deceptive qualities in its design.A gambling researcher from Monash University’s department of health social science, Charles Livingstone, said the Dolphin machine had been chosen because it represented a typical poker machine and included a number of allegedly deceptive qualities in its design.
“All poker machines currently on the market include three key features that are a function of their programming that are [allegedly] deceptive,” he said.“All poker machines currently on the market include three key features that are a function of their programming that are [allegedly] deceptive,” he said.
“One is a loss disguised as a win, when the machine provides bells and whistles a reinforcement effect even when the amount won is less than the amount wagered. This ‘win’ is completely illusory and is a key element for the establishment of what we call addiction.”“One is a loss disguised as a win, when the machine provides bells and whistles a reinforcement effect even when the amount won is less than the amount wagered. This ‘win’ is completely illusory and is a key element for the establishment of what we call addiction.”
He said the multiple-line poker wheel machines, where players win if they match up a certain number of symbols in a row, were also deceptive because there was a different number of winning symbols on each electronic wheel.He said the multiple-line poker wheel machines, where players win if they match up a certain number of symbols in a row, were also deceptive because there was a different number of winning symbols on each electronic wheel.
Some of the wheels were “starved of winning symbols,” he said, making it unlikely the player could ever win.Some of the wheels were “starved of winning symbols,” he said, making it unlikely the player could ever win.
The third deceptive mechanism mentioned in the legal claim focuses on the return to player ratio. Most poker machines say they have a return to player ratio of around 85%, meaning that in a $1 spend, the player can expect to walk away with at least 85 cents.The third deceptive mechanism mentioned in the legal claim focuses on the return to player ratio. Most poker machines say they have a return to player ratio of around 85%, meaning that in a $1 spend, the player can expect to walk away with at least 85 cents.
“But the 15% is taken at each transaction,” Livingstone said. “It means if you put $100 in and hit spin every three seconds, you can go through that cash in just 45 seconds. Most people don’t comprehend that. It’s not well promoted or understood and it’s rarely understood by regulators either.”“But the 15% is taken at each transaction,” Livingstone said. “It means if you put $100 in and hit spin every three seconds, you can go through that cash in just 45 seconds. Most people don’t comprehend that. It’s not well promoted or understood and it’s rarely understood by regulators either.”
Maurice Blackburn is hoping Crown and Aristocrat will be forced to remove the machines or change their design. The lead applicant in the case, Shonica Guy, played poker machines for 14 years, suffering significant losses. She first started playing at the age of 17.Maurice Blackburn is hoping Crown and Aristocrat will be forced to remove the machines or change their design. The lead applicant in the case, Shonica Guy, played poker machines for 14 years, suffering significant losses. She first started playing at the age of 17.
She claims she would never have become addicted without the allegedly deceptive mechanisms built into the machines.She claims she would never have become addicted without the allegedly deceptive mechanisms built into the machines.