## Facts

- Legion Post 304 Home Association (Legion) operated a club licensed to sell alcohol and offered patrons a game it called “Bonanza Bingo.”
- Patrons could purchase $1 tickets and then compare the tickets to a “master board” displayed in the bar to determine whether they had won prizes.
- The master board had “Bingo” printed at the top, with five numbers under each letter and a “free” space in the middle, laid out like a standard bingo grid.
- A bartender changed the master board’s numbers daily based on a random drawing from a deck of cards.
- In August 2013, Officer William Rosenstock of the Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement (the Bureau), inspected Legion and learned Legion’s small-games-of-chance license had expired in April 2013 and that Legion was still conducting games, including Bonanza Bingo; Rosenstock also learned Legion’s bingo license had expired and that Legion continued running Bonanza Bingo after that expiration.
- Rosenstock cited Legion for violations of Pennsylvania’s Local Option Small Games of Chance Act and the Bingo Law.
- An administrative-law judge (ALJ) dismissed the citation on due-process grounds and also stated that Bonanza Bingo was a lawful form of bingo.
- On administrative appeal, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) reversed the ALJ in part, finding (among other things) that Legion violated the law by offering Bonanza Bingo after its bingo license expired, while still concluding that the game itself was lawful “bingo” as defined by the Bingo Law.
- The Bureau appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County, arguing the Bingo Law authorizes only traditional “call bingo” (numbers announced and players cover matching figures on a card), and that Bonanza Bingo instead resembled a pull-tab or strip-ticket small game of chance with predesignated winners. The trial court rejected that argument, and the Bureau appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Bonanza Bingo—played by purchasing preprinted tickets and comparing them to a randomly generated bingo-style master board—fits within the statutory definition of “bingo” under Pennsylvania’s Bingo Law, or instead is an unauthorized pull-tab/strip-ticket type small game of chance.
2. Whether the PLCB and trial court erred in rejecting the Bureau’s position that the Bingo Law permits only traditional “call bingo.”

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s order.
- The court held that Bonanza Bingo falls within the Bingo Law’s definition of “bingo,” rejecting the Bureau’s attempt to limit the statute to “call bingo.”
- The court accepted the PLCB’s and trial court’s view that Bonanza Bingo’s core features match bingo as regulated by the Bingo Law, rather than a pull-tab/strip-ticket game in which winners are built into the ticket set in advance.
- The court’s ruling did not disturb the conclusion that Legion violated Pennsylvania law by running Bonanza Bingo after its bingo license expired; the dispute on appeal concerned how to classify the game, not whether Legion had proper licensure during the cited period.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation begins with the text; where the Bingo Law defines “bingo” without restricting the method to live verbal calls, a court will not add that limitation.
- A game can qualify as “bingo” when it uses a bingo-format grid (including a free space) and determines winners by matching a player’s card or ticket to numbers selected by a random process, even if play mechanics differ from traditional call-and-daub bingo.
- A pull-tab or strip-ticket small game of chance is characterized by sets of tickets where one or more tickets are predesignated as winners; a comparison-based game keyed to a separately generated, random master board is materially different.
- Agency interpretation may be given weight where the agency administers the regulatory scheme and its reading is consistent with the statutory language, but courts retain authority to decide questions of law.
- The legality of the game’s format (whether it is “bingo” under the statute) is distinct from whether the operator complied with licensing requirements at the time the game was offered.

## Conclusion

In *Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Legion Post 304 Home Association*, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the determination that Bonanza Bingo—sold as $1 tickets and played by comparing them to a randomly generated bingo-style master board—meets the Bingo Law’s definition of bingo, rejecting the Bureau’s claim that only traditional call bingo is authorized and that Bonanza Bingo should be treated as a pull-tab/strip-ticket small game of chance, while leaving intact the finding that Legion violated the law by operating the game after its bingo license expired.


Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Legion Post 304 Home Association, 164 A.3d 612 (2017)