Guy v Crown Melbourne Ltd (No 2)

Guy v Crown Melbourne Ltd (No 2) was a case in which the plaintiff, Guy, sought to hold Crown Melbourne Ltd and Aristocrat, the manufacturer of the Dolphin Treasure electronic gaming machine, liable under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) for misleading and unconscionable conduct in relation to the operation of the machine. The plaintiff alleged that the Dolphin Treasure machine contained features that misrepresented the odds of winning and that the machine was designed in such a way as to exploit a class of gamblers who were addicted or habituated to gambling. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the features of the Dolphin Treasure electronic gaming machine gave rise to representations about the odds of winning which were misleading or deceptive and whether the representations were made by Crown Melbourne or Aristocrat. The court also had to decide whether there was a class of gamblers who were "habituated" or "addicted" to gambling and whether such a class of gamblers were at a "special disadvantage" and whether the respondents engaged in unconscionable conduct in making the machine available for play to this class of gamblers.

The court found that none of the plaintiff's causes of action were made out. The court held that the representations made by the Dolphin Treasure machine were not misleading or deceptive and that the conduct of Crown Melbourne or Aristocrat could not be characterised as unconscionable. The court also found that the plaintiff's claim remained at a hypothetical level in relation to the class of consumers she had chosen to identify.

The court dismissed the application and directed the parties to file a joint minute of proposed orders reflecting the court's reasons in relation to the s 37AF application, including proposed orders concerning the filing of a generally accessible Court Book. The court also directed the parties to file and serve submissions on appropriate orders for costs if they were unable to agree on appropriate orders for costs.

This case highlights the importance of considering the regulatory scheme governing gambling in Victoria when determining whether there are contraventions of the ACL. The court found that it was not necessary to consider the interrelationship between the ACL and the regulatory scheme in this case because the plaintiff's claims were not made out. However, in other circumstances, findings of contravention could be affected by the existence of a regulatory scheme governing the conduct of a person subject to the terms of the ACL.