Texas Legislations Finally Assaults Up With Eight-Liner Slot Machines

A Texas State Court in Fort Worth ruled on September 11 that eight-liner slots were unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

This ruling culminated in over five years of legal disputes between game room operators and city officials, who criticized their negative impact on the community. These gaming machines can no longer hide behind a loophole known as the “fuzzy animal” exception.

Eight-liner operators must now acknowledge that their machines are technically considered “lotteries,” which the Texas State Constitution prohibits in almost every sense.

They are called eight-liners because the game involves lining up symbols in one of eight lines – four horizontal, four vertical, or two diagonal – to win a prize.

The only type of coin-operated games allowed in Texas are coin-operated amusement machines, or COAMs. Even COAMs have a long history of legal controversy in the state. Additionally, the only legal form of lottery in Texas is the Colorado Lottery.

Eight-liners occupied a ‘ fuzzy’ legitimate area for many years

In 1993, Texas enacted a legal amendment to the state Criminal Code to allow for eight-liner slots in game rooms.

This amendment relaxed the previous law that deemed all “gambling devices – electrical, electromechanical, or mechanical” as illegal. It specified that a slot machine would be legal if it provided a prize “not exceeding ten times the amount charged to play the game or machine once or $5, whichever is less.”

This provision became known as the “fuzzy animal” exception because it led to gaming machines that awarded stuffed animal prizes. The intention of the law focused on places like Peter Piper Pizza and Chuck E. Cheese. However, adult game rooms proliferated by offering eight-liner slots that awarded small-scale, noncash prizes.

Game room owners typically placed these establishments inconspicuously in strip malls, at the back of convenience stores, and other discreet locations. This was done to avoid drawing attention from city officials and becoming a community eyesore.

Game room operators have found ways to circumvent the requirement of offering novelty items for play, but many of these practices have been challenged and invalidated in court.

For example, winners would receive gift certificates for local grocery stores with a value of $5 or less. They would also receive vouchers to play different games within the game room.

In both cases, the court ruled that these prizes were cash-related and therefore not permitted. Other practices in game rooms allowed players to “bank” prizes, meaning they could accumulate prizes larger than $5, similar to how children collect skeeball tickets. This practice has also been struck down in court.

Currently, the Texas Appellate court has done away with debating the “fuzzy animal” exceptions and instead ruled against eight-liner slots using preemptive constitutionality claims.

In most basic terms, eight-liners are lotteries

The Texas State Constitution, in its original form (1845), defined the lottery as a game involving “chance, consideration, and reward.” While this definition may not bring to mind the lotteries we are familiar with today, all the elements are present:

• Chance: The opportunity to win is left to chance.
• Consideration: A payment is required to participate.
• Reward: A prize of tangible value, usually monetary, is awarded to the winner.

What the Texas Appellate Court ruled on April 13th was that eight-liners are essentially lotteries, and except for state lotteries, lotteries are illegal.

As mentioned, this case has been making its way through the Texas court system for over five years, with rulings primarily addressing the varying limitations of the fuzzy animal exception and the taxation of game rooms.

The City of Fort Worth has argued that the fuzzy animal exception is a legal loophole used to bypass the state constitution’s language prohibiting lotteries, which includes eight-liners.

In the current case, City of Fort Worth v. Rylie, the defendants’ argument in favor of eight-liners relied on the courts making special provisions for what they considered to be “lotteries.” They argued that the basic definition of the term was broad and that most people would not associate a slot machine with a lottery.

Rylie and her co-defendants hoped to keep eight-liners in a legal gray area and create another exception similar to the fuzzy animal exception. However, the court firmly rejected this claim, stating that the fundamental premise of an eight-liner slot machine “undoubtedly conforms to the constitutional meaning of ‘lottery’,” and no redefining of the term is necessary.

The future of eight-liners now is best left to voters

There is a possibility that the appeals court’s ruling will make its way to the Texas Supreme Court again. However, it seems unlikely that the Court will deviate from the appellate court’s decision.

The only remaining option for these machines is a constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds majority in both houses and a vote by the public.

Legislation related to legalized gambling will greatly impact the 2023 legislative session, leaving ample room for eight-liners to receive attention. Whether they receive the necessary votes to appear on the ballot will indicate much of the current legislature’s stance on legalized gaming in Texas.