Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway Reaffirms Video Gaming Terminals as Illegal Gambling Amid Two Lawsuits

Key Takeaways

• Catherine Hanaway: Missouri Attorney General maintains VGTs where players cannot affect outcomes are illegal games of chance under state law.
• Two Lawsuits: A local bar owner and the Missouri Licensing Advocacy Group (MOLAG) allege the crackdown denies venues due process and should be decided by the legislature.
• Enforcement Actions: Hanaway’s office targets both vendors and locations, reaching agreements with major distributors and securing search warrants across 10 counties.
• Legislative Gap: Missouri lawmakers have not explicitly banned or regulated VGTs, creating the current enforcement friction.

What happens when a state attorney general advances enforcement on gambling machines ahead of any explicit legislative action?

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has reaffirmed her strict position on video gaming terminals (VGTs) in the face of two lawsuits. The cases claim her office’s crackdown on bars, restaurants, and gas stations leaves no room for defense, according to reporting by GamblingNews. Hanaway insists these machines constitute illegal gambling when money is at stake and players cannot influence results.

The first lawsuit came from a local bar owner a few weeks ago, followed by a separate filing from the Missouri Licensing Advocacy Group (MOLAG). Both argue the issue belongs with state lawmakers, not the attorney general. Missouri has no statute that directly bans or regulates these devices.

Lawsuits Allege Denial of Defense Opportunities

The complaints center on claims that Hanaway’s team applies threats of prosecution and license pressure to force immediate shutdowns. Venue owners reportedly receive no meaningful chance to contest the actions before enforcement escalates. One of the lawsuits is scheduled for a hearing next month.

In an interview with KY3 reporter Hannah Falcon, Hanaway addressed the litigation directly. She explained that venues undergo investigation just as they would for any other crime. This procedural step, she maintains, satisfies the requirements before further action.

Hanaway’s Dual Enforcement on Vendors and Venues

Hanaway said that her team is “working it from both ends.” Agreements have already been reached with some of the biggest owners and distributors of VGTs. At the same time, authorities hold search warrants allowing seizure of machines from certain venues.

These steps target the supply chain as well as the locations. Hanaway stressed the criminal nature of the activity. “And let’s be clear: It is a crime in Missouri to offer and to promote illegal gambling,” she said.

Regulatory Politics and the Legislative Void

The dispute throws a spotlight on US state gaming regulatory politics. When legislatures leave ambiguity around specific formats, attorneys general step in with enforcement. Here, that creates immediate operational risk for machine suppliers and host businesses alike.

Machine operators face sudden seizures and legal exposure without prior clear notice. Venue owners in affected sectors report pressure that disrupts normal commerce. The coverage highlights the mechanics of the crackdown yet underemphasizes the longer-term competitive distortion: regulated gaming providers may gain an edge while gray-area operators navigate uneven enforcement.

Where Due Process Risks Lie

Treating VGT operations as straightforward criminal matters carries limitations. Lawsuits argue the absence of specific legislation undermines fair notice and the ability to contest classifications. Courts could view the approach as bypassing the proper lawmaking channel, especially with a hearing set for next month.

This tension is not abstract. It forces small businesses into defensive litigation and creates uncertainty for anyone investing in or deploying such equipment. Counterarguments from the attorney general frame the machines as clear violations, yet the legislative silence invites exactly these challenges.

The Call for Legislative Clarity

Missouri’s situation illustrates why operators and investors should track how states resolve regulatory gaps. Proactive engagement with lawmakers can prevent enforcement that races ahead of statute, producing clearer rules that balance enforcement with due process. The upcoming hearing and any legislative response will signal whether Missouri moves toward resolution or prolonged conflict.