O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 50-27-87.1 (2019)

Unfair methods of competition; unfair and deceptive acts

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The following acts or practices are deemed unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts under this article: (1) Until the corporation certifies that the Class B accounting terminal authorized by Code Section 50-27-101 is implemented, a master licensee, location owner, or location operator retaining more than 50 percent of the net monthly proceeds for the operation of a Class B machine; (2) A master licensee or owner entering into an agreement with a manufacturer or distributor: (A) That grants the owner or master licensee exclusive rights to own, maintain, place, or lease a type, model, or brand of bona fide coin operated amusement machine in this state; or (B) For the lease of a bona fide coin operated amusement machine, its parts, or software or hardware; (3) A location owner or location operator asking, demanding, or accepting anything of value, including but not limited to a loan or financing arrangement, gift, procurement fee, lease payments, revenue sharing, or payment of license fees or permit fees from a manufacturer, distributor, or master licensee, as an incentive, inducement, or any other consideration to locate bona fide coin operated amusement machines in that establishment. A location owner that violates this subsection shall have all of the location owner’s state business licenses revoked for a period of one to five years per incident. The location owner also shall be fined up to $50,000.00 per incident and required to repay any incentive fees or other payments received from the operator; and (4) A manufacturer, distributor, operator, master licensee, or individual providing anything of value, including but not limited to a loan or financing arrangement, gift, procurement fee, lease payments, revenue sharing, or payment of license fees or permit fees to a location owner or location operator, as an incentive, inducement, or any other consideration to locate bona fide coin operated amusement machines in that establishment. A manufacturer, distributor, operator, master licensee, or individual who violates this subsection shall have all of his or her state business licenses revoked for a period of one to five years per incident. The individual, manufacturer, distributor, owner, or master licensee also shall be fined up to $50,000.00 per incident.

History

Code 1981, § 50-27-87.1, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 37, § 1-1/HB 487; Ga. L. 2015, p. 39, § 8/SB 190; Ga. L. 2017, p. 774, § 50/HB 323.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2013, p. 37, § 3-1/HB 487, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that: ‘‘(b) If any section of this Act is determined to be unconstitutional by a final decision of an appellate court of competent jurisdiction or by the trial court of competent jurisdiction if no appeal is made, with the exception of subsection (g) of Code Section 50-27-78 and Section 2-1 of this Act, this Act shall stand repealed by operation of law.

‘‘(c) This Act is not intended to and shall not be construed to affect the legality of the repair, transport, possession, or use of otherwise prohibited gambling devices on maritime vessels within the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia. To the extent that such repair, transport, possession, or use was lawful prior to the enactment of this Act, it shall not be made illegal by this Act; and to the extent that such repair, transport, possession, or use was prohibited prior to the enactment of this Act, it shall remain prohibited.’’ As of May 2021, no such decision has been issued.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in All Star, Inc. v. Ga. Atlanta Amusements, LLC, 332 Ga. App. 1, 770 S.E.2d 22 (2015).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2015–2015 · leading case: All Star, Inc. v. Georgia Atlanta Amusements, LLC, 770 S.E.2d 22 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
All Star, Inc. v. Georgia Atlanta Amusements, LLC, 770 S.E.2d 22 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “OCGA § 50-27-87.1 (1). The law also makes it an unfair business practice for a location owner to “ask[ ], demand[ ], or accept[ ],” or for a machine owner to provide, “anything of value, including but not limited to a loan or financing arrangement, gift, procurement fee, lease…”
Salim Merch. I v. Ultra Grp. of Companies, Inc. (In re Al-Karim, Inc.), 529 B.R. 366 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2015). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 50-27-87.1(1). The new gaming statute also required substantial changes to the way business was conducted in terms of the transmission of payments and prohibited the payment of incentives.”
— 50-27-87.1(1) — 1 case
Salim Merch. I v. Ultra Grp. of Companies, Inc. (In re Al-Karim, Inc.), 529 B.R. 366 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2015). “O.C.G.A. § 50-27-87.1(1). The new gaming statute also required substantial changes to the way business was conducted in terms of the transmission of payments and prohibited the payment of incentives.”
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.