Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 8-1-150 (2026)
Contracts Founded Upon Gambling Consideration Void; Recovery of Money Paid or Things of Value Delivered.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) All contracts founded in whole or in part on a gambling consideration are void. Any person who has paid any money or delivered any thing of value lost upon any game or wager may recover such money, thing, or its value by an action commenced within six months from the time of such payment or delivery.
(b) Any other person may also recover the amount of such money, thing, or its value by an action commenced within 12 months after the payment or delivery thereof for the use of the wife or, if no wife, the children or, if no children, the next of kin of the loser.
(c) A judgment under either subsection (a) or (b) for the amount of money paid, thing delivered, or its value is a good defense to any action brought for such money, thing, or its value under the provisions of the other subsection.
(d) A judgment recovered under the provisions of this section is a defense to any proceeding on any garnishment served after the recovery of such judgment, and the court may make any order staying proceedings as may be necessary to protect the rights of the defendant.
(Code 1852, §§1562-1564, 1567; Code 1867, §§1874-1876, 1879; Code 1876, §§2131-2133, 2136; Code 1886, §§1742-1744, 1747; Code 1896, §§2163-2165, 2168; Code 1907, §§3338-3340, 3343; Code 1923, §§6808-6810, 6813; Code 1940, T. 9, §§44-46, 49.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Johnson v. Jefferson Cnty. Racing Ass'n, 1 So. 3d 960 (Ala. 2008).
Johnson v. Jefferson Cnty. Racing Ass'n, 1 So. 3d 960 (Ala. 2008). “" [5] Johnson contends that the MegaSweeps contract is void under § 8-1-150 because, she says, this Court in Barber "held that, as a matter of Alabama law, playing the MegaSweeps involved the payment of consideration to gamble.”
Adell v. Macon Cnty. Greyhound Park, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (M.D. Ala. 2011). “, and a 150-year-old Alabama statute that voids gambling contracts, Alabama Code § 8-1-150. Defendants, to include Victoryland’s president and the machine manufacturers, call Plaintiffs’ bluff in Rule 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) motions to dismiss, contending that the legal odds are on…”
Funliner of Alabama, LLC v. Pickard, 873 So. 2d 198 (Ala. 2003). “Pickard and Dowdell alleged public nuisance, violations of § 8-1-150, Ala.Code 1975, unjust enrichment or money had and received, and civil conspiracy.”
Macon Cnty. Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Hoffman, 226 So. 3d 152 (Ala. 2016). “§ 8-1-150, Aa. Code 1975. The trial court determined that, because Johnson’s arguments amounted to a challenge to the Me-gaSweeps contract as a whole rather than a challenge to the arbitration clause specifically, the issue of the validity of the contract was to be determined by…”
Dickerson v. Deno, 770 So. 2d 63 (Ala. 2000). “on a gambling consideration," as that term is used in Ala.Code 1975, § 8-1-150? We conclude that the agreement constituted a contract "founded .”
MacOn Cnty. Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Knowles, 39 So. 3d 100 (Ala. 2009). “1901, § 65 (prohibiting the legislature' from “authoriz[ing] lotteries or gift enterprises for any purposes”); Ala.Code 1975, § 8-1-150(a) (“All contracts founded in whole or in part on a gambling consideration are void.”
Estano v. Greenetrack, Inc., 25 So. 3d 449 (Ala. 2009). “Section 8-1-150, Ala.Code 1975, provides that a person may recover losses incurred as the result of an illegal gambling operation.”
Meyer v. Hawkinson, 2001 ND 78 (N.D. 2001). “2000) (Alabama Code § 8-1-150 prohibits enforcement of "payment for actual wagering or gambling"); Cole v.”
Seward v. Dickerson, 844 So. 2d 1207 (Ala. 2002). “However, we also held that such an agreement was void and unenforceable under Ala.Code 1975, § 8-1-150, as a "contract[] founded .”
Dickerson v. Comm'r, 2012 T.C. Memo. 60 (Tax Ct. 2012). “Clements threatened an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and also raised the issue of a payout to his clients in exchange for their promise not to talk to the media.”
Huuuge, Inc. v. Olivia Taylor Gann (Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court: CV-23-900125). (Ala. 2025). “In opposition to the motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs underscored that "the legislature chose, in section (a) of [§ 8-1-150] to void 'all 7 SC-2024-0454 and SC-2024-0455 contracts founded in whole or in part on a gambling consideration.”
Zynga, Inc. v. Gayla Hamilton Mills (Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court: CV-23-900033). (Ala. 2025). “In opposition to the motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs underscored that "the legislature chose, in section (a) of [§ 8-1-150] to void 'all 7 SC-2024-0454 and SC-2024-0455 contracts founded in whole or in part on a gambling consideration.”
— Ala. Code § 8-1-150(a) — 18 cases
Johnson v. Jefferson Cnty. Racing Ass'n, 1 So. 3d 960 (Ala. 2008). “" [5] Johnson contends that the MegaSweeps contract is void under § 8-1-150 because, she says, this Court in Barber "held that, as a matter of Alabama law, playing the MegaSweeps involved the payment of consideration to gamble.”
MacOn Cnty. Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Knowles, 39 So. 3d 100 (Ala. 2009). “1901, § 65 (prohibiting the legislature' from “authoriz[ing] lotteries or gift enterprises for any purposes”); Ala.Code 1975, § 8-1-150(a) (“All contracts founded in whole or in part on a gambling consideration are void.”
Funliner of Alabama, LLC v. Pickard, 873 So. 2d 198 (Ala. 2003). “Pickard and Dowdell alleged public nuisance, violations of § 8-1-150, Ala.Code 1975, unjust enrichment or money had and received, and civil conspiracy.”
Macon Cnty. Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Hoffman, 226 So. 3d 152 (Ala. 2016). “§ 8-1-150, Aa. Code 1975. The trial court determined that, because Johnson’s arguments amounted to a challenge to the Me-gaSweeps contract as a whole rather than a challenge to the arbitration clause specifically, the issue of the validity of the contract was to be determined by…”
Huuuge, Inc. v. Olivia Taylor Gann (Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court: CV-23-900125). (Ala. 2025). “In opposition to the motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs underscored that "the legislature chose, in section (a) of [§ 8-1-150] to void 'all 7 SC-2024-0454 and SC-2024-0455 contracts founded in whole or in part on a gambling consideration.”
— Ala. Code § 8-1-150(b) — 13 cases
Huuuge, Inc. v. Olivia Taylor Gann (Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court: CV-23-900125). (Ala. 2025). “In opposition to the motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs underscored that "the legislature chose, in section (a) of [§ 8-1-150] to void 'all 7 SC-2024-0454 and SC-2024-0455 contracts founded in whole or in part on a gambling consideration.”
Zynga, Inc. v. Gayla Hamilton Mills (Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court: CV-23-900033). (Ala. 2025). “In opposition to the motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs underscored that "the legislature chose, in section (a) of [§ 8-1-150] to void 'all 7 SC-2024-0454 and SC-2024-0455 contracts founded in whole or in part on a gambling consideration.”
Mills v. ZYNGA Inc (N.D. Ala. 2023).
Gann v. Huuuge Inc (N.D. Ala. 2023).
Pilati v. Yellow Soc. Interactive Ltd (N.D. Ala. 2023).
— Ala. Code § 8-1-150(c) — 2 cases
Huuuge, Inc. v. Olivia Taylor Gann (Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court: CV-23-900125). (Ala. 2025). “In opposition to the motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs underscored that "the legislature chose, in section (a) of [§ 8-1-150] to void 'all 7 SC-2024-0454 and SC-2024-0455 contracts founded in whole or in part on a gambling consideration.”
Zynga, Inc. v. Gayla Hamilton Mills (Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court: CV-23-900033). (Ala. 2025). “In opposition to the motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs underscored that "the legislature chose, in section (a) of [§ 8-1-150] to void 'all 7 SC-2024-0454 and SC-2024-0455 contracts founded in whole or in part on a gambling consideration.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.