Was the Chess Challenge video game machine illegal gambling in South Carolina?

Plain-English summary

A legislator asked the South Carolina AG about a prototype video game called “Chess Challenge.” In April 2002, the AG and a state law-enforcement agent inspected the only machine said to exist. On that setup, the AG said the machine appeared outside the prohibitions of § 12-21-2710 and therefore would not be subject to seizure. The letter was an advisory view of that particular machine, not an approval of all machines sold under the name.

The inspection had limits: no owner’s manual or manufacturer specifications were supplied, and the machine’s administrative and game-function screens could not be accessed. The AG said relatively minor changes could make it an illegal game of chance. If distributed machines were altered or made capable of alteration, he would advise law enforcement that they were subject to immediate seizure under Section 12-21-2712.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Game operators and distributors

The AG’s favorable assessment applied only to the specific prototype examined, with tickets reportedly redeemable for prizes and merchandise rather than cash. He expressly withheld a broader finding about altered machines and said gambling laws still applied.

Law enforcement

The letter said the inspected machine appeared not to be prohibited under § 12-21-2710. It also said the office would advise seizure if machines ultimately distributed were altered into games of chance or made capable of that alteration.

Common questions

Did the AG declare every Chess Challenge machine legal?
A: No. He assessed one prototype on the information available and said even minor changes could alter the legal result.

Was the inspected prototype subject to seizure?
A: The AG said it appeared outside § 12-21-2710 and thus would not be subject to seizure on that setup.

Did the AG inspect the machine’s internal settings?
A: No. He said no owner’s manual or specifications were provided and the administrative and game-function screens could not be accessed.

Background and statutory framework

The AG evaluated the machine against South Carolina’s prohibited gambling-device statute, § 12-21-2710. The letter identified consideration, chance and prize as the elements of gambling in the state. It warned that a game altered into a game of chance could be subject to immediate seizure under Section 12-21-2712.

Citations and references

• § 12-21-2710: prohibited machines and devices addressed in the inspection.
• 12-21-2712: seizure provision cited for altered machines.

Official title

Concerning the legality of a particular video game machine. Specifically, a game ‘Chess Challenge’ and they assume and are convinced that is perfectly legal…”

Requester

The Honorable Shirley R. Hinson, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-23-2002/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/02apr23hinson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

L

I

April 23, 2002

The Honorable Shirley R. Hinson
Member, House of Representatives
306-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Re:

Your Letter of February 8, 2002
Chess Challenge Video Game Machine

Dear Representative Hinson :
In the above-referenced letter, you request an opinion from this Office concerning the legality of a particular video game machine. You indicate that several of your constituents have approached you about "a game called 'Chess Challenge' and they assume and are convinced that it is perfectly legal ..." By way of background, you state that you" .. . spoke with Sheriff De Witt (Berkeley County) and Solicitor Hoisington (9th Judicial Circuit) regarding this machine and they told [you] that the game was obviously a game of skill therefore making it legal as long as there were no cash payouts involved ." You further indicate "that out of an abundance of caution [you] request an advisory opinion from [this Office] with respect to the legality of this particular machine."
~2

ti

Typical1y, of course, this Office does not give advice in advance as to video games. The role of this Office is to advise SLED in assisting that agency to perform its law enforcement duties. However, we are required by law to give legal advice to members of the General Assembly and for that reason, together with the fact that the Solicitor and Sheriff have advised that this machine is legal, we will provide our thoughts to you. Following your request and strictly as a result of your request, I, as well as an agent from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, examined a "Chess Challenge" machine. We have been advised that the machine is the only one in existence at this time ; that it is, in essence, a prototype. We have also been advised that players are apprised that cash payouts are expressly prohibited with regard to the operation of the Chess Challenge game and that tickets issued to players may be redeemed only for prizes and merchandise. In addition, we have been advised that there exists no owners ' manual or manufacturer's specifications related to this machine. No administrative, accounting and/or game function screens could be accessed through the machine ' s keyboard or any other location within the cabinet of the machine. The machine's appearance and operation are similar to other video gan1ing machines which have been found to be in violation ofS.C. Code Ann. R EMBERT

c. DENNIS B UILDING

l~ ~AT;; ;

•

POST OmcE Box I 1549

•

C OLUM BIA,

s.c. 292 11-1549

•

T ELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Shirley R. Hinson
Page 2
April 23, 2002

§ 12-21-2710 (Types of machines and devices prohibited by law). It is obvious, however, that the machine which has been provided for our review has been carefully crafted to avoid the proscriptions of Section 12-21-2710. In other words, the machine which we have reviewed has been cleverly designed to avoid the laws which deem gambling devices illegal per se. Given the specific set up of the machine we reviewed and the fact that we have been provided no owners' manual nor been provided any administrative/game function screens from which a more detailed analysis could be performed, I can only say that the machine we reviewed appears not to fall within the prohibitions of Section 12-21-2710 and thus would not be subject to seizure. Let me emphasize, however, that relatively minor changes could be made in this game which would transform the machine into an illegal per se game of chance. If that in fact becomes the case

• i.e. the machine is altered to make it into a game of chance - the analysis here is inapplicable.
  Moreover, should it become known that the machines which are ultimately distributed in South Carolina have been so altered or made capable of such alteration, this Office will advise law enforcement that the machines are subject to immediate seizure pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-21-2712. In addition, it goes without saying that this machine, nor any like it, may be used to circumvent the State's gambling laws. The elements of gambling in South Carolina are consideration, chance and prize. No violation of the State's gambling laws will be tolerated.

I

This letter is an advisory opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General and not officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

~M

Sincerely,

fUJ

I}

II
Assistant Attorney General
DKA/an