## Facts

- Tropicana operated a casino in Atlantic City and offered free “Diamond Club” memberships to patrons who completed an application and provided identifying and contact information for entry into Tropicana’s database.
- Tropicana ran the “Fun House Million Dollar Wheel Promotion,” under which Diamond Club members were entitled to one free wheel spin per day for a chance at prizes, including $1 million.
- On July 24, 1999, Rena Gottlieb, a Diamond Club member, went to the casino, waited in line, presented her Diamond Club card, and participated in the promotion.
- Gottlieb alleged the wheel landed on the $1 million prize and that the attendant immediately reactivated the wheel, which then landed on a lesser prize (two show tickets).
- Tropicana contended the wheel did not land on $1 million and that no reactivation occurred after any $1 million result.
- The Gottliebs sued for the promised prize; Tropicana moved for summary judgment, arguing (among other things) lack of consideration and absence of a triable dispute as to whether Gottlieb won.

## Issues

1. Whether a patron’s participation in a casino promotional contest, including joining a free club and taking the steps required to play, supplies sufficient consideration to form an enforceable unilateral contract for the advertised prize.
2. Whether disputed evidence about whether the wheel landed on the $1 million prize created a genuine issue of material fact that barred summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court denied Tropicana’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that minimal detriment undertaken by a participant in response to a promotional offer can constitute consideration, and that Gottlieb’s participation could satisfy that requirement.
- The court found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Gottlieb’s spin resulted in the $1 million prize, requiring resolution by a factfinder rather than on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Consideration requires a bargained-for exchange and may consist of a detriment to the promisee or a benefit to the promisor; it need not be monetary or of intrinsic value if it is the requested act or forbearance.
- Promotional contests can create enforceable unilateral contracts when the sponsor makes an offer and the participant performs the requested acts in response to that offer.
- Minimal participant detriment—such as providing requested personal information, traveling to the venue, waiting in line, and completing required steps to participate—may be sufficient consideration for a sponsor’s promise to award a prize.
- Summary judgment is improper when evidence, viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, permits a reasonable factfinder to resolve a material factual dispute either way.

## Conclusion

The court refused to dispose of the case on summary judgment, concluding that participating in Tropicana’s prize promotion could provide legally sufficient consideration for an enforceable unilateral contract and that a triable factual dispute existed over whether Gottlieb actually won the $1 million prize.


Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel & Casino, 109 F. Supp. 2d 324 (E.D. Pa. 2000)