MGM Facing Boycott for Suing Las Vegas Shooting Victims


It took just minutes for the hashtag #BoycottMGMResorts to appear on Twitter, and for people to declare they would no longer patronize the largest casino owner on the Las Vegas Strip.

“Was going to stay in November already changed my reservations,” a man named Brandon Tur wrote on Twitter. “One of the things you have to see multiple sources to believe it is real,” a woman named Susanne Abrams said.
The reaction to MGM Resorts International’s lawsuits against victims of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history was harsh, and probably not surprising.

“It’s rare to see a major brand blisteringly bury itself alive,” said Eric Schiffer, chairman of Los Angeles-based Reputation Management Consultants. “They were trying to create a chilling effect. Instead, it’s their brand that got chilled.”

MGM — whose Vegas resorts include the MGM Grand, Bellagio and Mandalay Bay, where the Oct. 1 shooting occurred — is seeking a court declaration that it can’t be held liable for deaths, injuries or other damages.

“We are not asking for money or attorney’s fees. We only want to resolve these cases quickly, fairly and efficiently,” MGM said in a statement. Company officials declined to comment for this story.

The Facts
The facts aren’t in dispute: Frequent gambler Stephen Paddock opened fire at festival goers from a 32nd-floor suite at Mandalay Bay, killing 58 and wounding about 500 before he committed suicide. More than 2,500 people have filed or threatened to file lawsuits against MGM, the company said in its complaints.

MGM argues that it hired a company, Contemporary Services Corp., that was certified by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide security at the Route 91 Harvest Festival. As such, according to MGM, it complied with the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act, a 2002 law that limits liability arising from mass attacks in the U.S.
In legal documents, MGM has said courts have repeatedly rejected claims of negligence filed after mass shootings, finding there is no “premises liability” where a third party “carried out a cold, calculated plan of extreme lethal violence.” To hold MGM responsible would “saddle businesses across the country with crippling liability for the evil acts of madmen — acts those businesses can, in the end, neither foresee nor prevent.”

MGM has filed at least nine nearly identical suits in federal courts against survivors and victims’ relatives who have sued the company.

A Stretch
Patrick McNicholas, a Los Angeles attorney who represents about 100 of the victims, called MGM’s attempt to use an anti-terrorism law to protect itself from liability “a stretch.” Instead of going after the injured and bereaved, he said, “they could have done it a more humane way.” For example, the company could have filed motions only in cases already in the courts.

In a hearing Tuesday in Los Angeles, attorneys for MGM said that they needed to specifically name the parties in order to establish a single legal ruling that applied to all of them.

The challenge for MGM, as one of its own lawyers acknowledged in a filing, is that the 2002 law “apparently has never been applied by a federal judge,” said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond’s School of Law in Virginia. There’s no history to suggest whether the approach will work.
MGM and other casinos stopped marketing their merchandise for several days after the shooting, and then the city’s congress and visitor bureau prepared videos encouraging customers to return to America’s gambling capital with local fame.

MGM’s Chief Executive James Murren said he was trying to change the culture in Las Vegas at a diversity summit sponsored by Bloomberg in May.

Now, with the laws that make up the headings, all this goodwill is at risk.

Legal warning !
The information, comments and suggestions there are not covered by investment advice. It is based on the author's personal opinions. These views may not fit your financial situation and risk and return preferences. For this reason, based solely on this information, investment decisions may not have the appropriate consequences for your expectation. Our Site is not responsible for any direct or indirect damages incurred by the investors as a result of the use of the information on the Site, deficiencies in the sources, damages incurred by profit, moral damages, or damage to third parties.