The Core Argument: “Complimentary” Does Not Mean “Exempt”
In casino dram shop litigation, defense counsel often argues a nuanced version of the “Social Host” defense: because the alcohol was “complimentary” (free), it was a gift, not a sale, and therefore standard liquor liability laws do not apply.
This is a myth. In almost every jurisdiction, the “consideration” (payment) for the alcohol is the gambling activity itself. The drink is not a gift; it is a calculated business transaction designed to lower inhibitions and increase “Time on Device” (TOD).
1. The “Comp” Algorithm: Automated Negligence
Modern casinos do not rely on waitresses noticing a thirsty player. They rely on Player Tracking Systems. When a patron inserts their loyalty card, the system tracks their “Average Bet” and “Theo” (Theoretical Loss). Once a specific threshold is met, the system often triggers a “Service Alert” to the nearest server.
The Expert Angle: We investigate whether the casino’s algorithm prioritized revenue over safety. Did the system continue to prompt servers to deliver drinks to a High Roller who had already triggered “security flags” for erratic betting behavior? If the computer ordered the drink, the casino institutionalized the negligence.
2. The Pace of Play vs. The Pace of Service
On a gaming floor, the environment is engineered to distort time (no windows, no clocks). “Comp” drinks are often delivered rapidly to keep the player seated.
-
The Violation: Servers often bypass the standard “15-second interaction” required to assess sobriety because they are rushing to fulfill “drink quotas” generated by the pit boss or the system.
-
The Evidence: We audit the Service Log timestamps. If a player received 4 drinks in 45 minutes while sitting at a Blackjack table, the casino violated standard service protocols, regardless of whether the drinks were free.
3. Defeating the “Voluntary Intoxication” Defense
Casinos argue that the patron chose to drink. However, when a venue offers unlimited free alcohol combined with a psychological environment designed to induce a trance-like state (the “Zone”), the duty of care increases, not decreases.
-
Case Strategy: We prove that the casino utilized “predatory over-service” tactics—providing free alcohol specifically to incapacitate the guest’s judgment regarding their gambling losses, which proximately caused their inability to operate a vehicle safely upon leaving.
Conclusion for Attorneys
Do not let the defense hide behind the “Comp” label. A free drink is often the most expensive one the casino serves—if it leads to a catastrophic injury lawsuit. We can help you request the specific Player Tracking Data needed to prove the casino knew exactly how much your client was drinking.