Lawsuit Targets ‘Skill Game’ Maker After Clerk Shot in Violent Robbery

PHILADELPHIA, PA – March 03, 2026 – A Philadelphia convenience store clerk, shot in the face at close range during an armed robbery, is now the face of a new legal battle against the burgeoning and controversial “skill game” industry. A lawsuit filed yesterday in Philadelphia County seeks to hold the machine’s manufacturer, Banilla Games, Inc., liable for the life-altering injuries sustained by 27-year-old Ahmedein Maham.

The product liability and negligence lawsuit, brought by the law firm Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, alleges that the slot-machine-style terminals create a dangerous environment by forcing low-wage workers to manage and dispense large cash payouts without the security measures found in a traditional casino. Maham was working the overnight shift at Philly Market on September 14, 2025, when assailants, who remain at large, robbed the store for the cash associated with the machines and shot him. He is still recovering from his devastating injuries.

“These ‘Skill Game’ makers place their machines in stores that do not have the safety and security measures necessary to run a casino operation,” said attorney Robert W. Zimmerman in a statement. “We allege that these betting machines have led to deaths and serious injuries to low-wage workers, and pose a direct threat to every community that they enter.”

A Magnet for Violent Crime

The lawsuit argues that the defendants, which include North Carolina-based Banilla Games and the local store operators, intentionally sacrificed worker safety for profit. The complaint asserts that the store was “unreasonably dangerous” and that the failure to provide adequate security was a “negligent, grossly negligent, careless, and reckless act.”

This incident is not an isolated one. Law enforcement officials and community leaders across Pennsylvania have increasingly warned that the proliferation of these machines in gas stations, convenience stores, and delis is directly correlated with a rise in violent crime. The large sums of cash required to pay out winnings make these small businesses, which often have minimal security, attractive targets for criminals.

Philadelphia Police have previously noted that the machines act as “magnets for crime,” leading to robberies, fights, and shootings. In one recent case, an organized crime ring was suspected of stealing approximately $200,000 from skill game machines across the state. In another, two men were charged with robbing 25 machines in the Philadelphia region, stealing over $100,000.

“These unregulated and unlicensed betting machines are magnets for violent crime, all too often resulting in horrible injuries or deaths to innocent workers trying to provide for their families,” added attorney John Lang. “The gambling machine defendants are out to make as much profit as possible, while literally putting workers in the line of fire.”

The Legal Gray Zone

The central issue enabling the spread of these machines is a persistent legal ambiguity. Manufacturers like Banilla Games contend their products are not gambling devices because they require a degree of player skill—such as pattern recognition or puzzle-solving—to win. Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly upheld this distinction, ruling that if skill is a predominant factor, the machines are legal and fall outside the purview of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board.

Just this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court effectively allowed Banilla's machines to continue operating by declining to review a lower court ruling that deemed them legal games of skill. This legal shield has allowed the industry to flourish in a regulatory vacuum, free from the stringent security requirements and high taxes imposed on state-licensed casinos.

Local governments have found themselves with little power to intervene. In March 2024, the Philadelphia City Council unanimously passed a ban on the machines in most establishments, citing public safety concerns. However, in a significant blow to city officials, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania overturned the ban in December 2024, reinforcing the state-level legal precedent and allowing the machines to remain.

A Precedent of Liability

This new lawsuit in Philadelphia is not the first of its kind, and its legal strategy is built on a powerful precedent. In November 2025, a Philadelphia jury delivered a staggering $15.3 million verdict to the estate of Ashokkumar Patel, a 50-year-old mini-mart clerk who was shot and killed during a 2020 robbery in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.

That case, also tried by Zimmerman and Lang, targeted Pace-O-Matic, the manufacturer of the “Pennsylvania Skill” games. The jury found the manufacturer negligent for creating an unsafe environment. Patel, like Maham, was responsible for handling large cash payouts from the machines. The man who shot him was a frequent player who had lost thousands of dollars on the very same machines before robbing the store.

The core of the argument in both cases is product liability: the claim that manufacturers are negligent for failing to design their products with known and available safety features. The lawsuit against Banilla Games specifically points to the lack of ticket redemption terminals—automated kiosks similar to ATMs that handle payouts and keep clerks out of the cash-handling process. Ironically, Banilla Games promotes a system called the TICO Kiosk on its own website, which allows winnings to be redeemed via gift cards, demonstrating their awareness of safer alternatives to direct cash payouts by employees.

By focusing on product liability, these lawsuits attempt to sidestep the legal debate over “skill versus chance” and instead focus on a manufacturer's fundamental responsibility to prevent foreseeable harm. The success of the Hazleton case suggests that juries may be receptive to the argument that when a product foreseeably turns a neighborhood store into a target for violent crime, the manufacturer bears a share of the responsibility for the tragic and predictable consequences.