Pennsylvania’s long-running battle over skill-game devices is reaching a new level of urgency, as state courts, lawmakers, and city officials continue to confront the machines’ legal status and economic impact. Recent decisions, combined with fresh legislative proposals and additional lawsuits, reflect a widening clash among manufacturers, casinos, regulators, and small businesses that rely on revenue from the machines.
Court Actions Leave Key Decisions Unresolved
A significant development came when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal related to the seizure of Banilla Games machines, leaving a lower-court ruling intact. That decision reaffirmed a Luzerne County trial court’s view that the seized terminals were not gambling devices, allowing the machines to stay in operation. The original case involved a 2019–2020 enforcement action in which the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement confiscated 11 machines, most of them produced by Banilla Games and owned by Pinnacle Amusement.
After prevailing at the county level, Pinnacle then saw the ruling upheld by the Commonwealth Court. The state’s police division pursued a further appeal, but the Supreme Court rejected the petition in a brief March 19 order without explanation.
Meanwhile, separate litigation involving Pace-O-Matic’s Pennsylvania Skill machines also remains active. A previous unanimous Commonwealth Court ruling found the devices to be games in which skill predominates, with Judge Lori Dumas writing: “The POM machines at issue in this case are not slot machines as commonly defined. Accordingly, these electronic games are not illegal per se.” She further stated that “POM machines are not gambling devices and, therefore, do not constitute derivative contraband,” adding that the judges “discern no legal error in the trial court’s determination that the POM machines are primarily games of skill, and thus, not gambling devices.”
That case originated from a 2019 seizure of three POM machines and cash from a Dauphin County sports bar. It is still pending before the Supreme Court and stands apart from the Banilla matter.
Philadelphia Ban Sparks New Lawsuit
Beyond the courtroom, local regulation has also escalated tensions. Philadelphia City Council approved legislation barring most businesses from operating skill-game machines unless they hold a casino or liquor license and provide space for at least 30 customers. Bars and taverns could host up to five terminals under the ordinance.
Shortly after passage, G&B Amusements—a Pennsylvania distributor for Pace-O-Matic—and a South Philadelphia 7-Eleven franchisee filed a lawsuit arguing the city exceeded its powers by enacting the ban. A Pace-O-Matic spokesperson confirmed that the appeal was submitted on March 25, and the company expects additional businesses to join the challenge. For now, the ordinance will take effect once signed by the mayor, though requests for comment from her office went unanswered.
Pace-O-Matic’s Mike Barley criticized the ban, saying: “We are alarmed that the Philadelphia City Council would pass a measure that will only hurt small family-owned businesses while doing nothing to curb crime,” and urged the mayor to delay action pending statewide legislation. Barley added that the company had “no choice but to take legal action to protect the interests of Philadelphia business owners.”
Legislature Weighs Regulation, Taxes, and Revenue Options
The broader question of how Pennsylvania should regulate or tax the machines remains unresolved. Skill games continue to operate in a legal gray area first recognized in a 2014 county court ruling, and attempts to legislate a statewide framework have repeatedly stalled.
Lawmakers are currently considering multiple competing proposals. Senate Bill 706 and House Bill 2075 would regulate and tax the machines, while Senate Bill 969 seeks to ban them outright. Governor Josh Shapiro has also backed regulation, proposing a 42 percent tax in his 2024–2025 budget.
Additional debates have emerged around whether to impose a monthly fee—suggested as a $500 charge per terminal—to generate as much as $300 million annually. Supporters say the approach could deliver new revenue for transit, infrastructure, and environmental programs, while critics warn the upfront cost could force small businesses to remove machines entirely.
At the same time, the state Supreme Court is weighing separate oral arguments over whether the devices violate existing gaming law. Senior Deputy Attorney General Susan Affronti argued that the machines still operate as gambling devices despite brief skill components, suggesting that most players “ignore the optional skill round.” Attorneys representing manufacturers pushed back, pointing to decades of precedent and asserting that skill remains the determining factor in payouts. Matthew Haverstick argued that players who master the challenge “can win back their wager plus 5%,” placing the devices outside the Gaming Control Board’s narrow definition of slot machines.
As the legal and political battles intensify, Pennsylvania’s multibillion-dollar gambling market faces increasing pressure from all sides. The eventual court rulings—combined with decisions from Philadelphia officials and the state legislature—are expected to shape the future of skill-game operations across the state.
Source:
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court to Decide on Skill Games’ Legality, yahoo.com, November 26, 2025.
The post Legal Fight Over Pennsylvania Skill Games Intensifies Statewide first appeared on RealMoneyAction.com.