A federal judge has ruled there’s sufficient evidence for a jury to hear claims that a California businessman was drugged with ketamine while gambling at the MGM Grand, leading to losses of $3 million (£2.4m).

Dwight Manley, a Southern California businessman, alleges that MGM increased his credit limit from $1m to $3.5m while he was in an incapacitated state during a 2021 gambling session at the Las Vegas property. MGM had attempted to dismiss the case. That didn’t work. The judge decided disputed facts warrant jury consideration, so it’s heading to trial.

Evidence Presented to Court

According to court transcripts obtained by Nevada Current, Manley’s legal team has presented several pieces of evidence supporting the drugging claim. A hair follicle drug test. Casino surveillance footage showing the preparation of his drinks. Text messages from his assigned casino host describing him as appearing “drunk or wasted” during play.

Perhaps most significantly, the plaintiff’s discovery process uncovered 11 previous drugging complaints filed against MGM properties. That’s a pattern, frankly, and it strengthens Manley’s case. The combination of physical evidence, video footage, and historical complaints creates a compelling enough foundation for the judge to let this proceed to a full trial.

MGM’s Defence Strategy

MGM Resorts is vigorously contesting the allegations. They argue the drug test results were inconclusive and paint this as a case of a gambler attempting to dodge legitimate debts. The company points to Manley’s payment of $560,000 on his flight home from Las Vegas and his failure to stop payment on his casino markers as evidence that he acknowledged the debts as valid.

Manley counters that he made the payment specifically to protect his business reputation. He fully expected reimbursement once his drugging allegations were confirmed. He claims he notified MGM about his suspicions the day after the incident and formally demanded preservation of evidence just three days later. That’s pretty immediate action if you’re supposedly just trying to wriggle out of debts.

What This Means for Casino Liability

This case raises serious questions about casino duty of care and the protocols in place to protect high-value players. The fact that 11 previous drugging complaints emerged during discovery is particularly concerning for the industry. Whether these were thoroughly investigated or dismissed could become central to the trial.

Extending credit limits to apparently intoxicated players is another aspect that will likely face scrutiny. Casinos walk a fine line between providing premium service to high rollers and ensuring they’re not taking advantage of vulnerable or compromised individuals. In practice, that line sometimes gets blurry when big money is on the table.

A settlement conference is scheduled before the trial proceeds. Not uncommon in cases of this magnitude. Given the potential reputational damage and the strength of evidence that convinced a federal judge to let this continue, MGM may well consider settling rather than letting a jury hear the full details in open court.

For now, this serves as a reminder that even the biggest casino operators face accountability when duty of care allegations are backed by solid evidence. The outcome could set important precedents for how casinos handle suspicious incidents and credit decisions involving potentially compromised players.

What the team thinks

Sheena McAllister says:

While this case centres on American jurisdiction, it highlights the critical importance of patron welfare monitoring that UKGC licensees should already have well embedded in their safer gambling frameworks. The allegation that credit limits were increased during suspected incapacitation raises serious questions about staff training and vulnerability detection, areas where UK operators have considerably more robust regulatory obligations than their US counterparts. Regardless of the trial outcome, this serves as a useful reminder that responsible gambling protections exist not just to satisfy regulators but to shield operators from precisely these kinds of duty of care claims.