## Facts

- Anthony John Campione was a professional blackjack player who used card counting while gambling at TropWorld Casino in Atlantic City.
- TropWorld identified Campione as a card counter and imposed individualized countermeasures, including lowered betting limits and restricting him to one hand.
- Campione alleged TropWorld applied those limits selectively to him while permitting other patrons at the same table to bet more and play multiple hands.
- In April 1989, TropWorld refused Campione’s attempts to exceed the special limits imposed on him.
- In November 1989, a similar dispute escalated; TropWorld personnel directed Campione to remove his hands from his cards and leave the game, and he refused.
- A TropWorld employee filed municipal court complaints charging Campione with disorderly conduct and defiant trespass; Campione was later acquitted.
- Campione sued in Superior Court asserting discrimination, breach of contract, and malicious prosecution based on selective enforcement and the criminal complaints.
- A jury found for Campione on discrimination and malicious prosecution and awarded compensatory and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the Casino Control Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over patron claims against casinos for discrimination and breach of contract based on casino regulatory practices.
2. Whether patrons may maintain common-law causes of action for discrimination and breach of contract in Superior Court notwithstanding the casino regulatory scheme.
3. Whether the malicious-prosecution verdict and damages award could stand given asserted trial errors, including jury-instruction defects.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court modified the Appellate Division’s judgment and remanded to the Law Division.
- The Court held the Casino Control Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction over patron claims for discrimination and breach of contract.
- The Court held patrons may pursue common-law discrimination and breach-of-contract claims in Superior Court even within a heavily regulated casino industry.
- The Court required further proceedings on the malicious-prosecution claim because the verdict and damages award required reconsideration in light of deficiencies in the trial proceedings (including jury-charge problems).

## Legal Principles

- Comprehensive administrative regulation does not, without clear legislative intent, divest courts of jurisdiction over traditional common-law claims between private parties.
- A patron may assert a common-law discrimination claim against a casino based on allegedly unequal treatment in the provision of casino services.
- A casino’s acceptance of a patron’s play and wagers may support contract or implied-contract duties enforceable through common-law remedies, separate from administrative enforcement.
- Courts may adjudicate private damages actions while respecting the administrative agency’s primary role in interpreting and enforcing gaming regulations.
- A malicious-prosecution award must be set aside or retried when the claim was submitted to the jury under legally defective instructions or other material trial error.

## Conclusion

The court preserved Superior Court jurisdiction and common-law remedies for casino patrons alleging discrimination and breach of contract, while remanding the malicious-prosecution verdict for further proceedings due to trial defects rather than treating the claim as barred as a matter of law.


Campione v. Adamar of N.J., Inc., 155 N.J. 245, 714 A.2d 299 (N.J. 1998)