The way this thing reads it could be applied to Carnvial games as well as the psuedo-casinos it is designed for. It depends on who interpets the law. As if the Dept of Ag needs one more thing for the inspectors to be inconsistant about or some local cop to go on a crusade against Carnival games becauae a prize is worth more then $10. The $10 Limit does not say "Cash" limit. I'm going just off what the artical says without seeing the actual law so I might be wrong.for those who don't know Ohio Fair Games are licenced as "Games of Skill" and sold a yearly licence for $70 so you can work Ohio County Fairs. This law might be why I have'nt seen any nice prizes in the stacker games in front of wally world lately. What's your guys take on it?
Ohio Supreme Court upholds payout limit on skill games
Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:32 AM
By Darrel Rowland
The Columbus Dispatch
Fred Squillante | Dispatch
Tic Tac Fruit games at a Buckeye Lake arcade in 2006A $10 limit on the payout of so-called games of skill was unanimously upheld today by the Ohio Supreme Court, reversing a lower court.
The justices deemed that the prize ceiling serves as legitimate government purpose.
"The operation of skill-based amusement machines is a valid statewide industry in Ohio, and the state has a legitimate interest in establishing economic regulations for the industry, including regulating the prizes that may be awarded," wrote Justice Maureen O'Connor for the court.
The October 2007 law was challenged by Pickaway County Skilled Gaming LLC and Stephen S. Cline, which own and operate Spinners, a Circleville arcade. They lost in Franklin County Common Pleas Court but won with the Franklin County Court of Appeals, which deemed the $10 cap unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clauses of both the Ohio and U.S. Constitution.
But the high court deemed otherwise.
"First, the ten-dollar prize-value limit ... is a regulation that is part of the state's scheme to protect its local economies. The statute is calculated to further the state's interest by eliminating the lure of big prizes and thus minimizing irresponsible play while providing a legal safe harbor for harmless games (e.g., Skee-ball) that award token prizes," O'Connor wrote.
"The prize-value limit is also rationally related to the government's interest in preventing criminal acts and enterprises by acting as a prophylactic measure against illegal, chance-based gambling. Motivated by financial gain, operators of illegal chance-based amusement machines can easily alter games of chance to appear to be games of skill. Financial motivation may come from charging more to play illegal games of chance or from individuals who overspend in hopes of winning big prizes.
"...(T)he ten dollar prize-value limit is designed to eliminate the latter motivation. Furthermore, it stands to reason that players will not pay the same fee to play games that award a ten dollar prize as they would to play games that offer higher value prizes. By limiting the potential prizes awarded by skill-based amusement machines, (the law) effectively limits the fee that operators can charge to play the games. Thus, the prize-value limit effectively removes the financial incentive for operators to disguise illegal chance-based machines as skill-based games."
The case was sent back to the appeals court for consideration of two other instances of alleged error in the Common Pleas ruling.
O'Connor's opinion was joined by Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O'Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp, and by Judge Vernon L. Preston of the 3rd District Court of Appeals, who sat in place of Chief Justice Eric Brown. Justice Paul E. Pfeifer concurred in judgment only.