Small businesses and veterans tell House panel Michigan Gaming Control Board is overreaching on redemption games

At a Michigan House oversight hearing, tavern owners and representatives of veterans organizations told lawmakers enforcement actions by the Michigan Gaming Control Board against so-called redemption or skill games have harmed small businesses and nonprofit posts and risked closing long-running community venues.

"I got a cease and desist letter from the gaming commission telling me I was 10 years or a $100,000 fine or possibly both," said Pat Fisher, who said his family-run Put Put Tavern in Grand Rapids operated a Nudge Master redemption machine for about 18 years after receiving verbal guidance from a vice officer and the liquor commission. "We did everything legally."

The testimony was echoed by Jeremy Mitchell, who said Maple Gardens Bar in Saginaw included redemption-game revenue when calculating the business’s sale and that a cease-and-desist arrived six days before the sale’s closing, nearly jeopardizing the transaction. "We saw neighborhood bars with cease and desist shut down," Mitchell said, adding that some owners face felony charges. Raymond Millen, a senior vice commander with an American Legion post, said small posts rely on every dime raised to support veterans and called aggressive enforcement "an injustice."

Eric Egan, an attorney representing the Michigan Redemption Game Association, framed the issue as regulatory overreach. Egan told the committee he helped draft the Redemption Act decades ago and said the association represents hundreds of establishments across the state. He said enforcement efforts have intensified since about 2018: undercover investigators play machines for 15–30 minutes, then owners receive a cease-and-desist alleging the devices fall outside the Redemption Act. "They're being threatened," Egan said, and many owners remove games or close rather than risk fines or license loss.

Industry witnesses and their testing expert, Nick Farley of Eclipse Compliance Testing, urged clearer statutory lines and mandatory independent device testing and certification. Farley explained the technical difference between games dominated by chance (slot machines, driven by random-number generators) and skill-based redemption devices that require player interaction to solve puzzles. He said manufacturers and independent labs can test configurations and document whether a device meets a statutory skill threshold.

Lawmakers pressed witnesses for specifics: whether machines publish a return-to-player percentage, how to measure the element of skill versus chance, and how problem-gambling protections (such as Michigan’s voluntary disassociated-persons list) apply to devices that resemble casino games. Farley and others said some machines can be configured to deliver greater than 100% payback under certain features but that those modes require deliberate configuration.

The committee’s chair said the panel wants a clear dividing line for regulation and asked the Michigan Gaming Control Board to return for a longer briefing. The hearing closed with a pledge to continue work to clarify statutory responsibilities and enforcement procedures.

The committee did not vote on legislation at this session; witnesses referenced a pending House bill (transcript reference "house bill 44 94") and asked lawmakers to consider statutory fixes or certification requirements as a way to resolve disputes over classification and enforcement.

Next steps: Members asked the Gaming Control Board to return for a fuller presentation and for staff to review the association's materials and the executive director’s letter that witnesses said had been widely distributed to establishments.