Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 432 / Act 152 of 2019
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 432.304 (2026)

Internet gaming, conduct generally; applicability of act; limitation on brand of internet gaming.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

LAWFUL INTERNET GAMING ACT


Act 152 of 2019


432.304 Internet gaming, conduct generally; applicability of act; limitation on brand of internet gaming.

Sec. 4.

    (1) Internet gaming may be conducted only to the extent that it is conducted in accordance with this act.

    (2) An internet wager received by an internet gaming operator or its internet gaming platform providers is considered to be gambling or gaming that is conducted in the internet gaming operator's casino located in this state, regardless of the authorized participant's location at the time the participant initiates or otherwise places the internet wager.

    (3) A law that is inconsistent with this act does not apply to internet gaming as provided for by this act.

    (4) This act does not apply to any of the following:

    (a) Lottery games offered by the bureau of lottery under the McCauley-Traxler-Bowman-McNeely lottery act, 1972 PA 239, MCL 432.1 to 432.47.

    (b) Class II and Class III gaming conducted exclusively on Indian lands by an Indian tribe under a facility license issued in accordance with a tribal gaming ordinance approved by the chair of the National Indian Gaming Commission. For purposes of this act, gaming is conducted exclusively on Indian lands only if the individual who places the wager is physically present on Indian lands when the wager is initiated and the wager is received or otherwise made on equipment that is physically located on Indian lands, and the wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made in conformity with the safe harbor requirements described in 31 USC 5362(10)(C).

    (c) A lawful fantasy contest.

    (d) Any lawful internet sports betting.

    (5) A person shall not provide or make available computers or other internet access devices in a place of public accommodation in this state, including a club or other association, to enable individuals to place internet wagers or play an internet game. The prohibition under this subsection does not apply to an internet gaming operator aggregating, providing, or making available computers or other internet access devices at its own casino.

    (6) For purposes of this act, the intermediate routing of electronic data in connection with internet wagering, including routing across state lines, does not determine the location or locations in which the internet wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.

    (7) An internet gaming operator may offer internet gaming under a maximum of 2 separate brands, 1 for each of interactive poker and other casino style games. This subsection does not prohibit an internet gaming operator from using fewer than 2 brands or from using a single brand to offer any combination of interactive poker or other casino style games. Only an internet gaming operator or its internet gaming platform providers may process, accept, or solicit internet wagers under this act. All websites and corresponding applications used to offer internet gaming must clearly display the brand of the internet gaming operator or its affiliate. The internet gaming operator may also elect, in its sole discretion, to have the brand of each internet gaming platform that it utilizes be the name and logos or no more than 1 internet gaming platform provider if the internet gaming platform also clearly displays the internet gaming operator's own trademarks and logos or those of an affiliate. The internet gaming operator is responsible for the conduct of its internet gaming platform provider.

    

    

History: 2019, Act 152, Imd. Eff. Dec. 20, 2019

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2021–2026 · leading case: Jacqueline Davis v. Betmgm LLC (Mich. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jacqueline Davis v. Betmgm LLC (Mich. 2025). · cites it 9× “” Plaintiff relied on the MGCB’s letter in opposing defendant’s motion for summary disposition; plaintiff additionally argued that her claims were not inconsistent with the LIGA such that her claims would be prohibited under MCL 432.304(3), which provides that “[a] law that is…”
Jacqueline Davis v. Betmgm LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “” MCL 432.304(1). Moreover, “[a] law that is inconsistent with this act does not apply to internet gaming as provided for by this act.”
Waterford Redemption Ctr. LLC v. Gaming Control bd/Exec. Dir (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “Additionally, the Act requires that an Internet gaming operator be licensed in order to offer Internet games.”
Monique Jewell v. Mgm Grand Detroit LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “This Court reasoned that the LIGA contains a provision similar to that of the MGCRA discussed in Kraft, that “[a] law that is inconsistent with this act does not apply to internet gaming as provided for by this act,” MCL 432.304(3). Id. This Court observed that the plaintiff’s…”
Monique Jewell v. Mgm Grand Detroit LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “This Court reasoned that the LIGA contains a provision similar to that of the MGCRA discussed in Kraft, that “[a] law that is inconsistent with this act does not apply to internet gaming as provided for by this act,” MCL 432.304(3). Id. This Court observed that the plaintiff’s…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 432.304(1) — 2 cases
Waterford Redemption Ctr. LLC v. Gaming Control bd/Exec. Dir (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Additionally, the Act requires that an Internet gaming operator be licensed in order to offer Internet games.”
Jacqueline Davis v. Betmgm LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” MCL 432.304(1). Moreover, “[a] law that is inconsistent with this act does not apply to internet gaming as provided for by this act.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 432.304(3) — 4 cases
Jacqueline Davis v. Betmgm LLC (Mich. 2025). “” Plaintiff relied on the MGCB’s letter in opposing defendant’s motion for summary disposition; plaintiff additionally argued that her claims were not inconsistent with the LIGA such that her claims would be prohibited under MCL 432.304(3), which provides that “[a] law that is…”
Jacqueline Davis v. Betmgm LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” MCL 432.304(1). Moreover, “[a] law that is inconsistent with this act does not apply to internet gaming as provided for by this act.”
Monique Jewell v. Mgm Grand Detroit LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “This Court reasoned that the LIGA contains a provision similar to that of the MGCRA discussed in Kraft, that “[a] law that is inconsistent with this act does not apply to internet gaming as provided for by this act,” MCL 432.304(3). Id. This Court observed that the plaintiff’s…”
Monique Jewell v. Mgm Grand Detroit LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “This Court reasoned that the LIGA contains a provision similar to that of the MGCRA discussed in Kraft, that “[a] law that is inconsistent with this act does not apply to internet gaming as provided for by this act,” MCL 432.304(3). Id. This Court observed that the plaintiff’s…”
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.