Rob Minnick, a recovering gambling addict, revealed this week that he received a legal threat from Matt Morrow Enterprises LLC, also known as Vegas Matt. Minnick published a video response to his threat on his “ODAAT Gambling Awareness” YouTube channel. He is not backing down.
The cease-and-desist is, in my opinion, ridiculous and does more harm than good for whatever case Vegas Matt’s attorney thinks is there. There was little upside and tons of downside sending this letter.
It is the first time I recall in my 25 years in the industry where a gambling company or individual has threatened a responsible or anti-gambling group. Online searches did not reveal any previous instances.
Gambling is a hot-button topic right now. Its explosion across the country has brought mountains of criticism from opponents. That includes YouTube channels, which often criticize gambling streamers.
Anti-gambling groups are well-funded
I first started in online gambling in 2001. My first online gambling business was in 2004. I have seen it all. The anti-gambling groups have been around the entire time. They have gained more power and funding over the years.
These groups are funded through different means. Some of it comes from organizations and individuals that oppose gambling. Some money comes from state gaming taxes. Casinos even help fund some of these organizations.
Minnick notes that he knows Les Bernal of “Stop Predatory Gambling.” Bernal is famous in the anti-gambling world. He speaks at government hearings and has over 650 media appearances.
I predict Minnick went to Bernal’s organization or a similar one when he received the cease-and-desist. Those lawyers drew the same conclusion I did: that Vegas Matt’s cease-and-desist was nonsense, so Minnick made a careful video rebutting it. All 17 pages of the document got published. This is what happens when you threaten organizations that know their rights and have resources.
The Streisand Effect is now in full effect
The Streisand Effect describes a scenario that was kept mostly quiet, then exploded after a censorship attempt. That is where we are now.
I would have never heard of Minnick or this dispute without the lawyer letter getting published. I am far from the only one. Minnick’s videos are getting more views than ever. This lawyer letter is generating revenue for the group through content monetization while also expanding the channel’s reach. Minnick even started a GoFundMe to cover potential legal fees.
I think a lawsuit would be a big loser
I am not a lawyer, but I have spent years following defamation law and have testified before the Nevada Legislature in Carson City about Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), which protects speakers from frivolous lawsuits.
If a Nevada judge determines a defamation lawsuit is a SLAPP, the plaintiff must pay the defendant’s legal fees and up to $10,000 in damages. The defendant can then file a separate action to recover additional damages. Most states have some version of this law.
I feel strongly this situation would be a SLAPP suit. Here is why.
From the cease-and-desist:
Its thumbnail displays Vegas Matt’s face beside the words “Fake Gambler.” The title uses the accusations “Fraud” and “Scam” to attract viewers to content centered on Vegas Matt. Those accusations are not harmless rhetorical flourishes when used as a title and thumbnail to identify a person and characterize his business conduct.
I completely disagree with this conclusion. In context, I think “Fake Gambler,” “Fraud,” and “Scam” are hyperbolic expressions of opinion, and not factual allegations that Vegas Matt committed a specific crime or deceived anyone. The video provides the factual context behind those opinions. That distinction matters because an insult is not automatically defamatory simply because the subject finds it offensive.
That is the meat of the defamation part of the complaint. You can read all 17 pages here.
Some will disagree with me about these insults being opinions. If I am wrong, I still feel the case would lose.
Actual malice matters here
Actual malice is a required element in a public figure’s defamation lawsuit. The plaintiff must show that the defendant knew he was making false, damaging statements, or entertained serious doubts, which is known as reckless disregard for the truth.
The letter’s underlying facts make an actual malice argument impossible to me. The speaker disclosed the factual basis for his criticism, and the letter itself acknowledges the accuracy of some of those assertions. The YouTube comments attached to the second half of the letter tell me viewers largely saw the video as opinion.
Vegas Matt must prove a likelihood of prevailing to survive an anti-SLAPP motion to strike, a law available in most states. Failing to do so results in dismissal and a legal fee shift to Minnick. Surviving an anti-SLAPP motion does not guarantee a win at verdict.
A private figure, who would not need to prove actual malice, might be able to do it, or even win the case, if the insults are determined to be false statements of fact. However, a public figure like Vegas Matt has the extra burden of proving actual malice, which seems like an impossible bar to clear. Proving the insults are false statements of fact is not enough to win.
This is more anti-gambling ammunition
This legal threat was a gift to the anti-gambling lobby. It could have collateral damage. Some may only affect Vegas Matt, while other unintended consequences could affect the entire gambling industry, especially the streamer and sponsorship sides.
YouTube slot streaming is already controversial
One of the points of Minnick’s video is his claims that slot streamers cause real harm to those fighting gambling addiction. Now, he has been legally threatened for aggressively expressing that opinion. This arms him with real proof to hand YouTube that the situation has gotten out of hand.
In an era where poker vloggers are getting banned from YouTube, some casino content is already prohibited, and social media companies are getting sued and settling cases related to harm, it is hard to think YouTube will give gambling creators the benefit of the doubt here.
I feel an objective legal department seeing one of its biggest creators sending dubious legal threats to one reporting on harm will side with the anti-gambling group. That could affect Vegas Matt’s account, or it could force a wider policy that could demonetize or even ban gambling videos.
Vegas Matt’s FanDuel partnerships
I know how anti-gambling groups operate. I would expect anti-gambling advocates to take this to sympathetic regulators and present it as evidence of a gambling company or gambling personality attempting to silence criticism from responsible gambling groups.
Vegas Matt is partnered with FanDuel, which is regulated almost nationwide, including in Massachusetts and Ohio, regulatory bodies that take responsible gambling especially seriously. I think they would take issue with FanDuel’s exclusive ambassador threatening a responsible gambling advocate. The company may act independently.
There is precedent. Massachusetts and Ohio regulators took issue with Barstool’s responsible gambling behavior. There were fines. PENN eventually dropped the Barstool partnership.
Mainstream media coverage
Les Bernal and his “Stop Predatory Gambling” group have over 650 media appearances. I expect they or similar groups are shopping this story right now and will find mainstream media outlets that will cover how someone trying to help problem gamblers was sent a flimsy cease-and-desist letter to silence his responsible gambling message. The articles and interviews write themselves.
It is now easy for gambling opponents to say, “The gambling industry is trying to silence us through frivolous litigation.” That is a compelling message.
Legislative and gaming regulatory issues
Anti-gambling groups also find their way into legislative discussions. This situation is certain to come up at those hearings. We may even see this issue used to lobby gaming commissions and legislatures to disallow filming of gambling on properties. This seems less likely than the other issues, but they are there.
Leave the anti-gambling people alone
Beyond the legal exposure, there is a strategic cost, too. The biggest lesson here, one I learned over 20 years ago, is that some anti-gambling people will say absurd things, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Fight them with your own speech, but threatening them only gives them more ammunition to prove their points. Just leave them alone for the good of the industry. They are not going anywhere, and dubious legal threats only embolden them.
