Was a race-car video game like Chess Challenge legal in South Carolina under the 2002 gambling law?

Plain-English summary

A senator asked whether a race-car-themed video machine like “Chess Challenge” was lawful. In an August 2002 informal opinion, an Assistant Attorney General said the machine he reviewed was an illegal game of chance under the then-existing statute. Although players could press buttons to stop some moving icons, the display moved too quickly for meaningful control, and the roulette-style border stopped independently of the player.

The letter also corrected an earlier AG position. An April 2002 favorable opinion on Chess Challenge had been rescinded after agents found material differences between the machine first shown to the office and the machine distributed for public play. The AG said chance dominated the actual machine and considered the race-car version likewise prohibited and subject to seizure and a destruction action.

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.

Common questions

Q: Did the AG rely only on the machine’s race-car images? A: No. The opinion analyzed how the seized machine operated and concluded that player skill did not control the result.

Q: Was the earlier approval of Chess Challenge still in effect? A: No. The letter said that approval had been rescinded after review of a machine used in public.

Q: What consequence did the AG identify for the race-car machine? A: The opinion described it as prohibited under the statute and subject to seizure and an action for destruction.

Background and statutory framework

The letter applied §12-21-2710 to the machine's actual operation and identified §12-21-2712 as the seizure-and-destruction procedure. It cited State v. One Coin-Operated Video Game Machine for a related machine found to be an illegal game of chance.

Citations and references

• §12-21-2710: prohibited gaming devices.
• §12-21-2712: seizure and destruction action.
• State v. One Coin-Operated Video Game Machine: related video game decision.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-28-2002-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/02aug-28-knotts.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

!.

August 28, 2002

The Honorable John M. Knotts, Jr.
Senator, District No. 23
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, South Carolina 29202

Re:

Video Game Machine Identical to "Chess Challenge"

Dear Senator Knotts:
In a letter to this Office, you have requested that we " ... investigate [a] particular [video game] machine and issue an opinion as to whether or not the machine is legal." By way of background, you indicate that you" ... have an individual who desires to place video machines in various businesses within [your] district ... "and that the" ... machine is basically identical to the 'Chess Challenge' game, but it has race cars on it rather than chess pieces." You also indicate that you have been advised that" ... the machine is a game of skill and not a game of chance just like the 'Chess Challenge."' You have attached to your request a copy of my April 23, 2002 opinion regarding the Chess Challenge video machine. Initially, I must advise that, by opinion dated July 25, 2002 (copy attached), the April 23, 2002 opinion regarding the Chess Challenge video game machine was rescinded. Subsequent to the issuing of the April 23 opinion, agents with the State Law Enforcement Division seized a Chess Challenge machine as the result of a violation of South Carolina's gambling laws. After reviewing the seized machine, it was apparent that there were material differences in the manner of operation of the Chess Challenge distributed for public use and the machine presented for this Office's review prior to the issuance of the April 23, 2002 opinion. Chance rather than skill determined the outcome of the game played on the seized machine. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Office that the Chess Challenge video machine is an illegal game of chance, prohibited as contraband per se by S.C. Code Ann. §12-21-2710. Further, with regard to the specific machine addressed in your request, a determination of its legality (whether the machine is contraband per se) depends on the application of S.C. Code Ann.
§12-21-2710. That Section of the Code provides in pertinent part as follows:
[i]t is unlawful for any person to keep on his premises or operate or permit to be kept on his premises or operated within this State any vending or slot machine, or any
/)

REMBERT C . DENNIS BUILDING

· ~~

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable John M. Knotts, Jr.
Page 2
August 28, 2002

I

I

video game with a free play feature operated by a slot in which is deposited a coin or thing of value, or other device operated by a slot in which is deposited a coin or thing of value for the play of poker, blackjack, keno, lotto, bingo or craps, or any machine or device licensed pursuant to Section 12-21-2710 and used for gambling or any punch board, or other device pertaining to games of chance of whatever name or kind, including those machines, boards or other devices that display different pictures, words or symbols, at different plays or different numbers, whether in words or figures or, which deposit tokens or coins at regular intervals or in varying numbers to the player or in the machine, but the provisions of this section do not extend to coin-operated nonpayout pin tables, in-line pin games, or to automatic weighing, measuring, musical or vending machines which are constructed as to a certain uniform and fair return in value for each coin deposited and in which there is no element of chance. The statute makes illegal the mere possession of certain machines and devices regardless of their use or intended use. See State v. 192 Coin-Operated Video Game Machines, 338 S.C. 176, 525 S.E.2d 872 (2000); Squires v. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, 249 S.C. 609, 155 S.E.2d 859 (1967); State v. Appley, 207 S.C. 284, 35 S.E.2d 835 (1945). Machines and devices that fall within the proscriptions of §12-21-2710 are therefore considered contraband per se. State v. 192 CoinOperated Video Game Machines, supra. While the statute specifically mentions such machines and devices as "slot machines" and "punch boards," it also outlaws any "other device pertaining to games of chance of whatever name or kind ... " A game of chance is simply a "game in which chance rather than skill determines the outcome." See Black's Law Dictionary. It is the opinion of this Office as well as a majority of jurisdictions in the United States that the "Dominant Factor" test is the appropriate test to determine whether a game is a game of chance. See OP. A TTY. GEN. DATED AUGUST 28, 2002. That is, a game is a game of chance when chance predominates over skill in determining the results of the game. See OPS. ATTY. GEN. DATED AUGUST 2, 2001, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995, DECEMBER 5, 1978. In August of 2002, agents with the State Law Enforcement Division seized a video game machine matching the description of the one given in your request as the result of a violation of South Carolina's gambling laws. With the exception that the animated icons resembled race cars, the machine operated in an identical manner to the Chess Challenge. I have been able to review operation of the seized machine with SLED Captain Stacy Drakeford. The operation of the seized machine can be described briefly as follows: The machine is activated by inserting currency and pressing a start button. The middle of the video screen displays icons [various animated race cars] that rotate in four (4) separate columns. The player can stop the columns all at the same time by pressing a single button or the player can stop each column individually by pressing a button which corresponds to the particular column. Once all columns have been stopped, the machine then triggers a carousel or roulette-style feature which forms a border around the screen. The border consists of panels containing the same icons as may appear

The Honorable John M. Knotts, Jr.
Page 3
August 28, 2002

in the columns in the middle of the screen. The machine will eventually stop and will illuminate a panel containing a race car-type animated character. If a combination of numbers on the icons matches in the columns and/or the border, the operator receives additional credits which allow for further play. Although the player may have some ability to control the length of time the icons rotate in the columns, the icons spin in such a manner that skill or manual dexterity plays no part in determining the combination of characters which appear. The speed in which the machine's icons advance is so rapid that the human eye cannot distinguish them or predict where they will land. Further, the rotation and subsequent cessation of the carousel or roulette-style feature is totally beyond the control of the player. The operation of the seized machine is nearly identical to the Chess Challenge machine which this Office has opined to be an illegal game of chance. The operation is also nearly identical to a video gaming machine known as, among other names, the "Jungle King." Numerous Jungle King machines have been seized by SLED around South Carolina and have been found by reviewing courts to be illegal games of chance pursuant to Section 12-21-2710. Moreover, Captain Drakeford, as well as a well recognized expert in the field who has reviewed these similar machines at the request of the State, has characterized them as video slot machines and "Cherry Master" machines in disguise. Of course, our Supreme Court has found the Cherry Master to be an illegal per se game of chance. See State v. One Coin-Operated Video Game Machine, 321 S.C. 176, 476 S.E.2d 443 (1996). Given my review of the operation of the video game machine described in your letter and its obvious similarities in manner of operation and appearance to those which courts and this Office have previously opined to be illegal games of chance, it is my opinion that the referenced video machine is a game of chance prohibited by S.C. Code Ann. §12-21-2710. As such, the machine would be subject to seizure by law enforcement and an action for destruction pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §12-21-2712. This letter is an informal 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.

David K. Avant
Assistant Attorney General
DKA/an
Enclosure