BetMGM faces a showdown with Crazy Eddie’s nephew Sam Antar

On 10 December, the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims will host a case that could become a landmark moment in the gambling industry. Sam Antar , a self-described problem gambler and nephew of Eddie Antar—of Crazy Eddie fame—is taking on BetMGM , one of the most recognisable names in online betting. With allegations ranging from account freezing to predatory bonus practices, this isn’t just any legal dispute. It’s a high-stakes poker game, and the whole industry is watching.

The Crazy Eddie legacy still haunts

Crazy Eddie was more than an electronics store in the ‘70s and ‘80s—it was a phenomenon. Famous for its wacky ads and “insane” prices, Eddie Antar’s chain was the talk of New York. But behind the scenes, the business was a fraud factory, orchestrated by Eddie and his nephew Sam Antar, who served as CFO. The duo cooked the books with schemes involving tax skimming, under-reported income, and inventory padding that ultimately inflated the company’s value.

Crazy Eddie wasn’t just a business; it was a New York institution turned national cautionary tale. The fallout from the fraud captivated the public and cemented the Antar family’s name in infamy.

The empire collapsed in spectacular fashion in 1989. Eddie went to prison while Sam flipped, becoming a government witness who helped unravel the entire operation. And now, decades later, Sam Antar is back in the spotlight, this time battling BetMGM in a digital-era showdown. This is a crazy tale of chaotic ambition, spiralling completely out of control!

When the first hand folded

Antar’s journey to the US Court of Appeals hasn’t been without obstacles. Earlier this year, US District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo dismissed his lawsuit, citing the Casino Control Act (CCA). Antar had argued that BetMGM breached the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) by incentivising a self-proclaimed problem gambler to keep playing, but the judge ruled the CCA supersedes the CFA.

The decision revealed a key flaw in the regulatory framework: the CCA lacks a duty of care clause that would compel gambling operators to act more cautiously around at-risk players. Judge Arleo’s dismissal highlighted the gap in New Jersey’s laws, leaving lawmakers and industry stakeholders debating how best to protect vulnerable consumers.

Industry insiders have been sounding the alarm for years, calling for operators to step up their duty of care to prevent harm among their patrons. While the court can’t rewrite legislation, the case has brought gambling accountability into sharper focus...[Read More]