Gen. 127] 127

 We understand that the company that produces MegaMania may 1

change the operation of the game so that it is conducted entirely in Calvert

County and is under the control of the licensee. This opinion addresses

MegaMania only as it is currently operated and described in the materials

you provided. 

We also understand that the company is working on additional

games that could be played on the same machines as MegaMania. This

opinion does not apply to any game other than the one described in the

material you provided as summarized in this opinion. 

GAMING

BINGO ) ELECTRONIC NATIONAL BINGO GAME MAY NOT BE

OPERATED UNDER CALVERT COUNTY COMMERCIAL BINGO

LICENSE IF OPERATION OF GAME IS NOT UNDER CONTROL

OF LICENSEE AND IF GAME IS OPERATED OUTSIDE OF

CALVERT COUNTY

March 1, 1999

The Honorable Robert B. Riddle

State’s Attorney for Calvert County

You have asked for our opinion whether a game called

MegaMania may be operated under a Class NG bingo license in

Calvert County. 

In our opinion, the on-line game that is described in the

materials that you have provided is “bingo” within the meaning of

the statute that permits commercial bingo in Calvert County.

However, those materials also indicate that the game would not be

conducted by the licensee, nor would it be conducted within Calvert

County. Accordingly, MegaMania as it is currently designed is not

among the activities authorized for a Class NG bingo licensee in

Calvert County.1
128 [84 Op. Att’y

 This description of the game is taken from the opinion in United 2

States v. 103 Electronic Gaming Devices, 1998 WL 827586 (N.D. Cal.

1998), from descriptions in advisory opinions of the Chairman of the

National Indian Gaming Commission dated July 10, 1996 and July 23,

1997, and from the memorandum of Multimedia Games, the Seneca

Cayuga Tribe, and the Cherokee Nation, in support of a motion for

summary judgment in United States v. 162 MegaMania Gambling

Devices, Civil No. 97-CV-1140-K(J) (N.D. Okla.). 

I

Background

A. MegaMania

MegaMania, as it is currently operated, permits players at

gaming facilities nationwide to participate in a single, linked

simultaneous bingo game in which all of the players compete against

one another. Players deposit money with a clerk and receive a PIN 2

number to enter into a MegaMania terminal, known as an Electronic

Player Station (“EPS”). The EPS displays randomly generated cards,

which simulate traditional bingo cards. Each player may play up to

four cards at an initial cost of 25¢ per card. 

After each set of three numbers are called, players may reject

cards or pay an additional 25¢ per card to continue playing those that

are retained. This fee is deducted from the player’s initial deposit.

When the initial deposit is exhausted, additional money can be

inserted directly into the EPS. A player cashes out by taking the PIN

number receipt back to the clerk to collect any money left on deposit

and any prizes. 

Play does not start unless there are at least 48 cards in play by

at least 12 players. There does not appear to be an upper limit on

how many can play. The numbers for the game are drawn live at a

bingo facility on Indian lands in the western United States. The

numbers drawn are displayed on the EPS and also announced

through an audio transmission. The corresponding numbers on a

card are covered automatically when the player presses a “daub”

button on the terminal. When the first player or players covers a

straight line on a card, he or she declares “bingo” on one or more
Gen. 127] 129

 In addition, certain charitable and nonprofit organizations are 3

authorized to conduct bingo and other types of gaming. See Annotated

Code of Maryland, Article 27, §255.

cards by pressing the daub button. All players are then notified

electronically. 

The winners’ prizes are determined by the number of cards

being played, the number of balls that have been drawn, and the

number of players achieving bingo simultaneously. If a player fails

to notice a “bingo” and press the daub button within a certain time,

play continues. Prizes may also be won by covering all four corners

of the card. 

B. Licenses for Bingo in Calvert County

Ordinarily, it is a criminal violation to keep a gaming table or

a place for gambling. Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 27,

§§237, 240, and 241. A person operating a MegaMania game in

Calvert County would thus be in violation of the criminal law unless

its operation were otherwise sanctioned by law. 

Commercial bingo is permitted in Calvert County under

licenses issued by the County Commissioners. Article 27, §259A. 3

A license authorizes the licensee to “operate a bingo game; subject

however to the limitations upon seating and player capacity

established for such license.” Article 27, §259A(b)(2). While most

classes of licenses for commercial bingo have limitations as to

seating and player capacity and as to the amount of the prize that can

be awarded, none of these limitations apply to a Class NG licensee.

Article 27, §259A(b)(1)-(2). 

C. Definition of “Bingo”

There is no statutory definition of “bingo” in Maryland.

Neither Article 27, §259A, nor any of the other statutory provisions

that authorize various organizations to conduct bingo, define that

term other than to state whether it includes instant bingo. See, e.g.,

Article 27, §§ 252(m), 254(a)(2), 259A(a)(1), 260(a), and 261(a). 

In Bender v. Arundel Arena, 248 Md. 181, 236 A.2d 7 (1967),

the Court of Appeals relied on Webster’s Third New International
130 [84 Op. Att’y

Dictionary, which defines bingo as “a game played usu. for a pool

with cards bearing rows of numbers in which a caller draws

numbered counters from a stock and each player covers the

corresponding numbers if they appear on his card, the winner being

the one who first covers one complete row.” A subsequent opinion

of this Office described the game in greater detail:

By contrast, the traditional game of bingo

is commonly played in lodges, halls, and

church basements, or permanent ‘bingo

parlors’ and requires tables and chairs for the

players as well as a variety of other

equipment. Each player receives one or more

cards and chips or other markers to cover

squares on the card. The game is further

described as follows:

“The cards, made of cardboard or paper,

are printed with five rows of five squares

each. One letter of the word BINGO appears

over each of the vertical columns. All of the

squares contain a number, except the ‘free’

center square. Numbers 1 through 75 are

used. The ‘B’ column usually contains any

five number between 1 and 15; the ‘I’ column,

any five between 16 and 30; and so on.”

“The purpose of the game is to cover

enough called numbers to form a pattern –

usually a vertical, horizontal, or diagonal line,

or four corners. There are also many special

games and gimmicks designed to increase

participation.”

Commission on the Review of the National

Policy Toward Gambling, Gambling in

America 160 (1976). This report goes on to

describe the manner of play as follows:

“In a typical game, the announcer calls a

letter and number, randomly selected from 75

ping-pong-type balls printed with a letter from
Gen. 127] 131

the word BINGO and a number from 1 to 75,

in the same groupings as the cards. As these

numbers are called, the balls are placed on a

master board containing all the letters and

numbers to form a record of the game.”

The game continues until someone forms a

winning pattern, shouts ‘BINGO.’ and claims

the prize. Id.

The traditional game of bingo holds a

unique position among the various forms of

gambling, because many people do not

consider it true gambling at all. Id. Bingo

sessions are usually run or sponsored by

charitable organizations and, therefore, people

tend to attribute to it a respectability they

would not accord other forms of gambling,

such as numbers playing.

78 Opinions of the Attorney General 347, 351-52 (1993).

These definitions generally accord with those found in other

sources. See Annot., Games of Chance or Skill, 135 A.L.R. 104

(1941); State v. Parrish, 887 P.2d 127 (Kan. 1994).

II

Discussion

A. MegaMania as Bingo Under Federal Case Law

The relationship of MegaMania to the game of bingo has been

considered by two federal courts. See United States v. 103

Electronic Gaming Devices, WL 827586 (N.D. Cal. 1998); and

United States v. 162 MegaMania Gambling Devices, No. 97-C1140-K (N.D. Okla. October 26, 1998). The question before those

courts was whether MegaMania is bingo or a game similar to bingo,

or is instead an “electronic or electromechanical facsimile of any

game of chance or slot machine... of any kind” for purposes of the

federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Under IGRA, bingo

and games similar to bingo are classified as Class II gaming and are
132 [84 Op. Att’y

permissible on Indian lands if the state where the Indian lands are

located permits such gaming. 25 U.S.C. §2710(b)(1). By contrast,

electronic facsimiles and other machines are classified as Class III

gaming, which may be played on Indian lands only if the tribe and

the state within which the Indian lands are located have negotiated

a tribal-state compact. 25 U.S.C. §2710(d)(1)(C). Both courts

concluded that MegaMania is more akin to bingo and thus should be

classified as Class II gaming.

Both cases arose when the federal government sought

forfeiture of MegaMania devices located on Indian lands. In each

case, the court found that MegaMania machines had all of the

elements of the game of bingo that were set out in the federal law.

It is played for prizes with electronic cards bearing numbers; the

players cover the numbers electronically by pressing the daub

button; and players win by being the first to cover a designated

pattern on the cards. Moreover, each court concluded that a

MegaMania machine is not a gambling device within the Johnson

Act 15 U.S.C. §§1171-1178, and therefore is not a facsimile of a slot

machine under IGRA. Specifically, the courts found that the

machine did not deliver the element of chance, but rather that chance

was supplied by the game of bingo, which took place outside of the

machine. In addition, players of MegaMania play against each other,

not against the machine, and the game continues until at least one of

the players wins. Thus, both courts concluded that MegaMania was

an aid to the playing of bingo and not a Class III gaming device.

B. Authority From Other States

To date, no cases have addressed the issue of whether state or

local bingo laws authorize operation of MegaMania. However, there

is at least one case and a number of opinions from attorneys general

of other states that analyze the types of games that are permitted by

a statute that authorizes bingo. Those opinions are instructive and

demonstrate that the considerations expressed in the federal IGRA

cases are also relevant to analysis of state laws concerning bingo. 

Whether a specific game is bingo or a prohibited gaming

device often depends on whether the players play against one

another or whether they simply play against the machine. When the

latter is the case, the machine is an illegal gambling device and is not

authorized by a statute that allows bingo or similar games. Thus, in

Kansas v. Parrish, 887 P.2d 127 (Kan. 1994), the Supreme Court of
Gen. 127] 133

 Other opinions have rejected all electronic play on the basis that 4

the particular state statute requires a physical card. See Opinion of the

Attorney General of California, 70 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 304, 1987 WL

247256 (December 22, 1987); Opinion of the Attorney General of Alaska,

1987 Alaska Op. Atty. Gen. 327, 1987 WL 121195 (November 6, 1987).

These opinions suggest that live bingo, in contrast to electronic versions,

“is an open and simple game not easily manipulated” while “[t]he

operation of video game bingo would not be subject to similar scrutiny

and protection.” Opinion of the Attorney General of California, 67 Ops.

Cal. Atty. Gen. 528, 1984 WL 162106 (December 21, 1984). Another

opinion notes that electronic bingo made monitoring of the games more

difficult for law enforcement personnel. Opinion of the Attorney General

of California, 70 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 504, 1987 WL 247256 (December

22, 1987). These opinions ultimately were not based on these policy

grounds, but rather on the language of statutes that precisely defined the

game of “bingo” in ways inconsistent with electronic play. However, in

the absence of any definition of the game “bingo” in the Maryland

statutes, these decisions cannot be read as controlling.

Kansas held that instant bingo was not included within a

constitutional provision authorizing bingo, because instant bingo

“does not have the group participation required of bingo-type

games.” 

Various state attorneys general have cited the lack of group

participation in finding that a particular game was not bingo. The 4

Mississippi Attorney General concluded that a video bingo machine

in which the winner was decided by the machine itself was not

“bingo” within the authorization of a Mississippi statute. Opinion

of the Attorney General of Mississippi, 1992 WL 614638 (March 19,

1992). The Tennessee Attorney General concluded that video bingo

was not legal under Tennessee law where there was no interaction

among the participants. Opinion of the Attorney General of

Tennessee, Opinion No. 85-192, 1985 WL 193741 (June 10, 1985).

Finally, the Virginia Attorney General concluded that a bingo game

encompassed completely within a machine was not the game of

bingo authorized by a Virginia statute. Opinion of the Attorney

General of Virginia, 1978-79 Va. Op. Attorney General 173, 1979

WL 31884 (May 10, 1979). Cf. 77 Opinions of the Attorney General

82 (1992) (video lottery, in which players wager against “randomly

derived game results on individual computer terminals” not

authorized by the lottery statute, contrasted with keno, which is

played in a social setting and not on individual computer terminals).
134 [84 Op. Att’y

C. Analysis Under Maryland Law

1. Bingo under Maryland Law

In our opinion, MegaMania constitutes “bingo” as that term

has traditionally been understood. The game is played against other

players rather than against the machine itself. Numbered balls are

drawn at random by a person from a mechanical device, not

generated by the EPS. Numbers are called and matching numbers on

cards are covered. The game is won when a player covers numbers

in a designated pattern and announces a “bingo.” The essential

nature of the game remains the same even if the cards and the

covering of the numbers are represented electronically, a computer

rather than a master board game keeps track of the numbers that

have been called, and a player presses a button on the terminal to

announce a bingo rather than shout. Cf. 77 Opinions of the Attorney

General 82, 85 (1992) (“The General Assembly surely did not intend

that the Lottery Agency be limited to operating its lotteries in the

same manner as lotteries were operated in years past, without the

benefit of modern technology.”). 

Moreover, in our view, the nature of the game is not altered by

the fact that it is being played in more than one place simultaneously.

Cf. State v. C.B.S. Enterprises, 95 A.2d 16 (N.J. 1953) (Playing of

simultaneous bingo at two separate, licensed locations by means of

a “microphonic device” authorized by bingo statute). Thus, it is our

view that MegaMania is “bingo” within the meaning of the statute.

This conclusion does not end the inquiry. A license issued

under Article 27, §259A authorizes the licensee to operate or

conduct bingo within Calvert County. As MegaMania is currently

played, it does not appear that the game would be operated by the

licensee or that it would be conducted within Calvert County.

2. Operation of MegaMania by the Licensee

“The word ‘conduct,’ like the words manage and direct,

suggests control.” Opinion of the Attorney General of California, 67

Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 528, 1984 WL 162106 (December 21, 1984)

citing Ciro’s of S.F. v. State Board of Equalization, 142 Cal. App.2d
Gen. 127] 135

 While West Bingo Corporation v. Comptroller, 1984 WL 2887 5

(Md. Tax. June 8, 1984) involved charitable organizationsthat apparently

allowed a private operator to conduct bingo under their license, that case

does not address the issue of whether their mode of operation was legal,

but only the tax consequences of that operation.

636, 639 (1956) (concluding that by installing and using playeroperated computerized electronic video machines the organization

relinquishes control over the game itself). Ordinarily, in the context

of bingo, the operator is the person who draws and announces the

numbers. See State v. Parrish, 887 P.2d 127 (Kan. 1994). The

licensee, it goes almost without saying, is the person to whom the

license has been issued. Rider v. State, 815 P.2d 198 (Okla. 1991)

citing Black’s Law Dictionary 921 (6th Ed.1990). While we would

not read the statute to require that the individual who holds the

license be the only person who draws and calls numbers, in the

context of the statute, it appears that the Legislature intended that the

person drawing and calling the numbers be subject to the control of

the licensee. 

The Court of Appeals has noted that the favorable public view

of bingo compared to other forms of gaming is attributable to the

impression that it is conducted by regulated charitable entities, rather

than by a “‘fakir’ or ‘nimble trickster.’” State v. Wyand, 304 Md.

721, 730, 501 A.2d 43 (1985). Thus, when a State authorizes a

charitable or nonprofit organization to conduct bingo, it is generally

held that the organization must conduct the bingo itself, rather than

allowing it to be done by a private organization. 70 Opinions of the

Attorney General 107 (1985); In re Application for Bingo License of

New Day Tabernacle, 801 P.2d 742 (Okla. 1990). Nor is it 5

impossible that a game of bingo could be manipulated, especially

when some of the players are not physically present. See Elizabeth

Lodge, No. 289 v. Legalized Games of Chance, 170 A.2d 471 (N.J.

1961). These considerations underlie the State policy requiring the

detailed regulation of gaming. Accordingly, the conduct of the game

of bingo must be under the control of the person that the State has

authorized to conduct the games. 
136 [84 Op. Att’y

In MegaMania the balls are drawn by a person who is not

within the control of the licensee in any way. He or she is not

employed by the licensee, subject to the management or control of

the licensee, or even in a place where the licensee is fully aware of

his or her actions. This delegation of the responsibility for the

conduct of the game takes it outside of the authorization of the

statute for the licensee to conduct bingo. 

3. Play within Calvert County

An additional problem with the operation of MegaMania is that

the game of bingo itself is not taking place within Calvert County,

which is all that is authorized by the statute. It is our view that the

Legislature, in authorizing the conduct or operation of bingo “within

Calvert County,” intended exactly what it said: that the authorized

games must take place within Calvert County. In MegaMania the

drawing of the balls and the calling of the numbers takes place in

another state, beyond the control not only of the licensee, but of the

State of Maryland. In addition, as the game is currently designed,

players within Calvert County would be competing with players in

other locations outside the State of Maryland. This renders

impossible the type of regulation necessary for the appropriate

conduct of gaming. 

When the General Assembly has chosen to permit gambling

that crosses State lines, it has expressly said so. See State

Government Article, §9-111(b) (multi-state lotteries); Business

Regulation Article, §11-804 (betting on out-of-state races); Article

27, §363 (possession of out-of-state lottery tickets). In the absence

of such authorization, such activities are illegal. 77 Opinions of the

Attorney General 78 (1992); (use of computer in Maryland to initiate

purchase of out-of-state lottery tickets is illegal); 57 Opinions of the

Attorney General 346 (1972) (possession of an out-of-state lottery

ticket is a violation of law against lotteries even if it was legal where

it was purchased). 
Gen. 127] 137

III

Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that play of MegaMania, as

described in the materials you provided, constitutes bingo and could

be authorized under Article 27, §259A, the statute that permits

commercial bingo in Calvert County. However, as it is currently

designed, with the drawing and calling of the numbers out-of-state

by persons not under the control of the licensee, MegaMania may

not be offered by Class NG licensees.

J. Joseph Curran, Jr.

Attorney General

Kathryn M. Rowe

Assistant Attorney General

Robert N. McDonald

Chief Counsel

 Opinions and Advice

Editor’s Note:

The statutes governing commercial bingo in Calvert County

have been recodified at Annotated Code of Maryland, Criminal Law

Article, §13-701 et seq.