A federal judge from the Middle District of Florida has granted the Seminole Tribe of Florida’s (Tribe) motion to intervene in a putative class action brought by a plaintiff, who alleged that Seminole Hard Rock Digital, LLC (SHRD) violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).
Specifically, the court found that SHRD is “an inadequate representative” of the Tribe’s interests.
By way of background, plaintiff Brandon Montgomery focused on SHRD’s “No Regret First Bet” promotion on the software application Hard Rock Bet, through which SHRD allegedly encouraged “users to make their first bets up to $100, with the promise of giving the money back if it doesn’t win.”
Montgomery alleged that “SHRD deliberately did not communicate that users availing themselves of the . . . promotion would only be credited with a Bonus Bet.”
According to Montgomery, “a player betting $100 of their own money at even odds could win $191—the initial bet plus the winnings less the house’s cut. Yet he says that a player winning with a credited $100 Bonus Bet will receive only the winnings, not the value of the bet itself.” So “once the new user loses their initial bet, they are not in the same position as they were before placing their bet, in direct contrast to the advertising materials of SHRD.”
Montgomery also maintained that SHRD’s advertisement of the “No Regret First Bet” promotion is misleading and violates FDUTPA.
In response, SHRD moved to intervene for the purposes of filing a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
In the court’s analysis, the federal judge noted that the Tribe “makes a prima facie showing that its motion is timely and that it has an interest in the transaction at issue that may be impaired by the action’s disposition.”
Montgomery, meanwhile, challenged “only the Tribe’s argument that SHRD does not adequately protect the Tribe’s interests.”
The court further noted that the Tribe “argues that SHRD’s representation of the Tribe’s interests is inadequate for two main reasons. First, the Tribe contends that it is the proper defendant because SHRD has no legal interest in the Tribe’s sports-betting business and ‘the Tribe is legally responsible for the conduct at issue and otherwise has total authority and control over the website and apps offering the Tribe’s sports betting games’ under the Tribe’s compact with the State of Florida. Second, the Tribe maintains that as a sovereign entity, the Tribe has interests not shared by entities like SHRD in defending its sovereign immunity and its right to conduct gaming operations.
“The Tribe is right. While SHRD and the Tribe have a shared interest in avoiding liability in this action, the Tribe has additional interests in defending its ongoing right to conduct gaming on its lands and the scope of its sovereign immunity waiver. Both of those issues are addressed in the Tribe’s 2021 Compact with the State of Florida, which the Tribe must abide by to offer sports betting games on its lands. See 2021 Gaming Compact Between the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the State of Florida § V.D.9 (Apr. 23, 2021)
“SHRD is not a party to the compact with Florida. Montgomery has not shown that SHRD has a right to offer sports betting in Florida independent of the Tribe. Nor has he shown that SHRD has the same sovereign interest in abiding by the compact—and maintaining the right to offer sports betting—that the Tribe does. And SHRD, as a limited liability company, possesses no innate sovereign immunity and thus does not have the same interest as the Tribe in policing the scope of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity waiver. As such, the Tribe has met the ‘minimal’ burden of showing that SHRD ‘may be’ an inadequate representative of its interests.’” Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of America.
Brandon Montgomery v. Seminole Hard Rock Digital; M.D. Fla.; Case No: 8:24-cv-1062-KKM-TGW; 2/10/25
