## Facts

- The United States filed a civil forfeiture action seeking forfeiture of 103 “electronic gambling devices,” including MegaMania terminals located at an Indian casino in Northern California.
- Multimedia Games, Inc., the manufacturer and seller of MegaMania, appeared as claimant and opposed forfeiture.
- MegaMania is a networked, multi-player game played on computer terminals linked across multiple locations, with players participating in the same game.
- Players purchase up to four electronic bingo cards and pay per draw for each card in play; the game begins only after a minimum number of players and cards are purchased.
- Numbers are randomly drawn from a central bingo blower located in Indian country and transmitted electronically to the terminals.
- Players “mark” drawn numbers on their electronic cards; the first player to complete a designated pattern wins the main prize, with possible consolation prizes.
- The government argued MegaMania functioned like an illegal gambling device akin to a slot machine because play was automated and electronic, and wagers were placed on each draw.
- Multimedia argued MegaMania was bingo (or similar to bingo) and that the terminals were permitted “electronic, computer, or other technologic aids” for Class II gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
- The district court granted summary judgment to Multimedia, concluding MegaMania qualified as Class II bingo under IGRA and was not illegal under the Johnson Act; the United States appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether MegaMania constitutes “bingo” or “a game similar to bingo” under IGRA, including the use of permitted electronic or technologic aids, such that it is Class II gaming.
2. If MegaMania is Class II gaming under IGRA, whether the terminals are nonetheless prohibited “gambling devices” in Indian country under the Johnson Act and therefore subject to forfeiture.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Multimedia.
- The court held MegaMania is bingo (or similar to bingo) as a Class II game under IGRA, notwithstanding its electronic format and speed of play.
- The court held the terminals function as permissible technologic aids to a Class II bingo game and therefore are not illegal gambling devices subject to Johnson Act forfeiture in this setting.

## Legal Principles

- Under IGRA, Class II gaming includes bingo (and certain games similar to bingo) and may be conducted using “electronic, computer, or other technologic aids.”
- Core attributes of bingo for IGRA purposes include: players competing against one another; use of cards/game faces; random number draws; marking of drawn numbers; and winning by being first to complete a predetermined pattern.
- Devices that merely facilitate an IGRA-authorized Class II game (e.g., storing/displaying cards, transmitting draws, and assisting play) can qualify as technologic aids rather than prohibited gambling devices.
- Statutes governing Indian gaming should be read harmoniously; where IGRA specifically authorizes Class II bingo with technologic aids, the Johnson Act should not be construed to nullify that authorization for such Class II use.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded that MegaMania’s structure satisfied IGRA’s conception of bingo because players competed against each other based on random draws to complete patterns on cards, and the terminals served as technologic aids rather than standalone gambling devices; accordingly, the government could not forfeit the terminals under the Johnson Act on the record presented.


United States v. 103 Elec. Gambling Devices, 223 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2000)