PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT RULES SKILL GAMES ARE SUBJECT TO THE GAMING ACT AND CRIMES CODE

In a highly anticipated decision issued on June 15, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dramatically altered the legal landscape for so-called "skill games" operating throughout the Commonwealth.

The Court consolidated two major cases involving Pennsylvania Skill Amusement Devices and Pace-O-Matic ("POM") machines. For years, operators relied on Commonwealth Court decisions that concluded these machines fell outside the reach of both the Pennsylvania Gaming Act and Pennsylvania's criminal gambling laws.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

THE COURT'S HOLDING

The Court held that Pennsylvania skill games are subject to both:

• The Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act; and

• Section 5513 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code.

The Court concluded that the Commonwealth Court's prior interpretation was incorrect and that the General Assembly had already addressed the distinction between games of skill and games of chance when it amended the Gaming Act in 2017.

Those amendments expressly included "skill slot machines" and "hybrid slot machines" within the statutory definition of a slot machine. According to the Supreme Court, this demonstrated a clear legislative intent that the presence of a skill component does not remove a device from regulation under Pennsylvania gaming laws.

WHY THE DECISION MATTERS

The ruling affects thousands of machines located throughout Pennsylvania in:

• Bars and taverns

• Restaurants

• Social clubs

• Convenience stores

• Gas stations

• Laundromats

• Grocery stores

• Other retail establishments

The Court specifically rejected the notion that these machines could avoid regulation simply because they were operated outside of licensed casino facilities.

120-DAY SAFE HARBOR PERIOD

Recognizing that many business owners reasonably relied on prior court rulings, the Supreme Court stayed enforcement of its decision for 120 days.

During that period, law enforcement agencies are prohibited from taking adverse action against owners or operators of skill game devices based upon the Court's ruling.

The Court emphasized that businesses acted in reliance upon existing judicial decisions and should be afforded time to adjust to the new legal landscape.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The Court expressly noted that the Pennsylvania General Assembly remains free to enact legislation addressing skill games.

Business owners, operators, distributors, and industry participants should closely monitor developments and consult legal counsel regarding the potential impact of this decision on their operations.

CONCLUSION

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision represents the most important development in Pennsylvania gaming law in years. While the Court left the door open for legislative action, the current legal framework now treats skill games as falling within both the Gaming Act and the Crimes Code.

Businesses operating these devices should use the Court's 120-day safe harbor period to evaluate their legal exposure and prepare for potential regulatory changes moving forward.