Missouri / Legal position gauge

Moderate risk

Editorial assessment from Missouri-specific research—not legal approval. Licensed Missouri counsel must review before any deployment decision.

Why this rating?

Missouri defines gambling as staking or risking something of value upon a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the player’s control (RSMo § 572.010(4)). Chance is a material-degree test: skill may be present and still leave the contest inside the statute (§ 572.010(3)). A device is a gambling device if it is used or usable in the playing phases of gambling (§ 572.010(5)). In 1913, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that a machine showing the next prize in advance is a series of separate sales with no chance (City of Moberly v. Deskin). In February 2026, a federal district court applying § 572.010 declared Banilla “No Chance Game” terminals with an optional prize viewer illegal gambling devices outside a licensed casino and treated even consistent use of the viewer as staking on the next unseen result (TNT Amusements v. Torch Electronics). The Missouri Gaming Commission’s 2019 letter reached the same conclusion on reveal-before-play. Setting up any slot machine is promoting gambling in the first degree—a class E felony (§ 572.030). Article III, § 39(9) still bars unauthorized lotteries; games of chance on land remain outside the riverboat exception in § 39(e). No reported Missouri appellate decision has tested mandatory pre-reveal with exact monetary disclosure, a genuine no-charge decline, and cent-level redemption. Those untested mechanics, plus the absence of any case against a full-pool reveal with mandatory pre-reveal, drop the rating from elevated to moderate. Deskin, Integrity Vending, and Torch tested a next-prize preview or an optional viewer after money was on the machine—not a mandatory full-pool reveal. The usable-device standard and riverboat exclusivity keep the rating out of the unsettled band.

This gauge also weighs that we identified no charges and no decided case in Missouri against a game that used a full-pool reveal together with mandatory pre-reveal. Banilla, Torch, and JD Prime used an optional viewer of the next assigned result after money was already on the machine. Café terminals paid first, then revealed. Those fact patterns are not this architecture and do not, by themselves, set the rating.

Scale: High risk → Elevated risk → Moderate risk → Unsettled → Moderately favorable → Favorable → Strong position. These are editorial categories, not probabilities of approval or findings of legality.

Source review date: . Has this exact model been tested? · Counsel checklist · Authorities

NCG GAMESMissouri position brief
Missouri  /  Position brief

Preview has never been a safe harbor.
Deskin said so in 1913. A federal court said so again in 2026.

Missouri has treated a prize-preview machine as a gambling device for more than a century. City of Moberly v. Deskin called the “each play is a separate sale” theory unsound because the preview allures the next play. In February 2026, applying § 572.010, a federal court declared Banilla “No Chance Game” cabinets with a prize viewer illegal outside licensed casinos. The NCG position is that those machines charged players to play through losing turns, left the viewer optional, and trapped cents—facts this architecture does not share. Missouri has not held whether a software-enforced, no-charge decline after mandatory exact disclosure is a different transaction.

Has this been tested? What remains for Missouri counsel
Working position

This brief analyzes the proposed transaction architecture under current Missouri law. It is not a finding of legality, Missouri Gaming Commission approval, or authorization to operate cash-prize devices. Games of chance on land remain outside Article III, § 39(e)’s riverboat exception. Authorized channels include licensed excursion gambling boats under RSMo §§ 313.800–313.840, the state lottery, licensed bingo, horse racing, fantasy sports as regulated, and charitable raffles or sweepstakes under § 39(f). Setting up a slot machine is a class E felony.

Missouri legal starting point

Missouri criminalizes promoting, profiting from, and possessing devices used in gambling that is not licensed under Chapter 313 or otherwise specifically authorized.

RSMo § 572.010(3)–(4)

Material-degree chance—or a future contingent event

A person gambles when he or she stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his or her control, upon an agreement to receive something of value if a certain outcome occurs. A contest of chance is one in which the outcome depends in a material degree upon chance, “notwithstanding that the skill of the contestants may also be a factor.” Skill does not, by itself, take paid prize play outside the definition.

RSMo § 572.010(5), (11)–(12)

Used or usable—and replay is not cash

A gambling device is equipment “used or usable” in the playing phases of gambling, including gambling by a person with a machine. A slot machine may eject something of value “depending upon elements of chance.” The only amusement carve-out is a device that confers only an immediate right of replay not exchangeable for something of value. Redeemable credits, tickets, and cash are “something of value.”

Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 39(9), 39(e)

Unauthorized lotteries; riverboats only

Article III, § 39(9) forbids the General Assembly to authorize lotteries except as provided in §§ 39(b), 39(c), 39(e), and 39(f). A lottery is an unlawful scheme in which, for consideration, participants have an opportunity to win something of value determined by chance (§ 572.010(7)). Games of chance on excursion gambling boats are confined to the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers (including specified boats-in-moats). There is no retail cash-cabinet exception.

Central timing question: § 572.010(4) asks whether the player stakes or risks value upon the outcome of chance or a future contingent event. The NCG position is that at Accept the monetary result is already fixed and disclosed—so the player is not risking value on an unresolved outcome. Missouri courts and a 2026 federal judgment have treated prize-preview cabinets as gambling when players still paid to move through unseen later results, when the preview was optional, or when the device remained usable as a slot. Missouri has not held whether mandatory disclosure plus a free decline changes that result.

Safeguard 1

Exact cost and result are known before acceptance.

Before the player becomes financially committed to a transaction, the system discloses the exact transaction cost and exact monetary result. Accept processes only those disclosed terms.

Why this matters under Missouri law

§ 572.010(4) requires staking or risking value upon the outcome of chance or a future contingent event. If the economic outcome is already fixed and disclosed before Accept, the strongest NCG argument is that the player is not risking value on an unresolved outcome—they are accepting a disclosed, predetermined transaction whose result is already known.

Contrary authority

Deskin players could see the next result before depositing a nickel; the court still found a gambling device. Torch players could press a prize viewer and see the next dollar amount; the court held the viewer “immaterial” to gambling-device status because the statute asks whether the device is usable for gambling and because later results remained unseen. The MGC’s 2019 letter said reveal before first play does not remove Banilla NCG cabinets from Chapter 572. Prosecutors will argue casino-style presentation still frames the session as a contest whose benefit depends on chance from the player’s chair (Thole).

Implementation risk

Weakening factors: showing cost or result after partial payment, allowing acceptance before disclosure renders, mismatch between displayed and settled amounts, or making reveal optional. Any of those would collapse the distinction from Deskin and Torch and recreate the optional-viewer fact pattern already declared illegal.

RSMo § 572.010(4)Timing of the stake is critical
Safeguard 2

Viewing the offer does not require payment.

The player may see the disclosed offer—including zero or negative-net outcomes—without paying for that transaction. Declining imposes no charge for that offer.

Why timing of consideration matters

Torch’s most important factual finding against the viewer was that a player who saw $0 still had to pay through that turn to reach the next result, and that a $1 insertion at a $0.25 play level committed remaining cents across unseen later turns. NCG separates inspection from commitment: no consideration moves for a declined offer, and a losing offer can be refused without buying it. That is the factual distinction Torch and Integrity Vending did not have.

Contrary authority

Prosecutors may argue the player purchased access to a sequence of offers by earlier deposit, and that each request for the next offer is staking on a future contingent event. Deskin refused to treat each previewed play as ending the relation between player and machine. Article III, § 39(9) and Mobil Oil show Missouri will find consideration without a tidy per-ticket purchase. If decline is not genuinely free—or if the next offer cannot be viewed without consuming credits—the Torch pay-through theory returns.

Torch (pay-through zeros)No payment on decline
Safeguard 3

Monetary results and reel positions are predetermined.

Monetary outcomes are fixed before acceptance within a finite predetermined pool. Reels, symbols, and entertainment layers cannot modify the disclosed monetary result after acceptance.

Distinction from Missouri authorities

Torch assumed a finite shuffled list of prize multipliers and still found chance: Banilla shuffled the pool before shipping; a random start index selected the entry point; and a separate RNG reverse-mapped spinning-reel pictures to the already-determined prize. Predetermination of the dollar amount was not a defense that won. NCG’s distinction is not predetermination alone—it is predetermination plus mandatory disclosure before financial commitment plus a free decline plus reels that are themselves predetermined rather than reverse-mapped at play time.

Player-control and future contingent events

§ 572.010(4) reaches events “not under [the player’s] control or influence.” A finite pool assigned by the operator or software is not player-controlled. Thole and Omega treated electronic selection of cards or symbols as material chance even when the player made some decisions. If any post-acceptance or post-reveal randomness remains—start index, bonus animation, or reel mapping—it is an independent chance element Torch treated as sufficient.

Device and reel presentation

A slot machine is a gambling device that, after insertion of a coin or object, may eject something of value “depending upon elements of chance” (§ 572.010(11)). Setting up any slot machine is first-degree promoting gambling (§ 572.030(1)). Labels (“amusement,” “no-chance,” “sweepstakes”) do not control. The Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control’s 2020 circular treated pre-reveal “gray” machines as a liquor-license risk after Integrity Vending’s felony conviction.

TorchThole
Safeguard 4

The player may stop and redeem—including cents.

Eligible remaining credits may be redeemed without further play. Redemption includes fractional dollars; balances are not rounded down to trap value in the machine.

Effect on Missouri analysis

Torch found it “impossible for a player to redeem a balance of less than $1.00,” so a $1 insertion at a $0.25 play level committed leftover cents across unseen turns. Full cent-level redemption is a concrete factual distinction from that record and from trapped-replay theories in Thole. It supports the argument that only accepted transactions consume value and that the player retains a genuine exit.

Limitation

Redemption does not cure an otherwise unlawful gambling transaction. Peace officers may seize gambling devices, records, and stake money; forfeited devices with no legitimate use are ordered publicly destroyed (RSMo § 513.660, formerly § 572.120). Integrity Vending’s machines were publicly destroyed after the Platte County felony conviction. Possession of a slot machine or other gambling device intended for unlawful activity is a class A misdemeanor (§ 572.070).

ILLUSTRATIVE CASH-OUT

$22.00 ticket+$0.67 cents→$0.00 remaining
RSMo § 513.660Exit rights ≠ legality
Safeguard 5

Software enforces non-bypassable rules.

Mandatory pre-reveal, accept/decline, no post-acceptance RNG, predetermined reels, and redemption rules are architecturally enforced—not merely published as disclaimers.

Why enforcement matters in Missouri

Missouri device cases turn on actual mechanics and how customers can use the cabinet—not marketing labels. Torch treated an optional prize viewer as legally immaterial because players who skipped it used the device like a slot, and the statute asks whether the device is usable for gambling. Software enforcement is how a mandatory-reveal, no-charge-decline design can be proved if charges are brought under §§ 572.030–572.070 or civilly under the Merchandising Practices Act or liquor processes.

Implementation risks

Alternate clients, debug modes, optional reveal, stale-offer acceptance, server paths that charge on preview, reverse-mapped reel RNGs, or inability to redeem cents would collapse the distinction from Deskin and Torch and expose operators to class E felony promotion (any slot machine), class A misdemeanor device possession, seizure and public destruction, liquor-license action, and Attorney General Merchandising Practices Act suits of the kind filed in Dunklin County in February 2026. Casino-style presentation without the enforced accept/decline sequence is the fact pattern Missouri authorities have already condemned.

RSMo § 572.030Engineering ≠ statutory permission
Required analysis

Has this exact model been tested in Missouri?

We did not identify a reported appellate decision in Missouri directly testing this complete transaction architecture—mandatory pre-reveal, exact monetary disclosure before financial commitment, genuine accept/decline with no charge on decline, no post-acceptance randomness, finite predetermined pool, predetermined reels, software-enforced safeguards, and cent-level redemption.

What Missouri courts and agencies have addressed—and how those systems differ

  • City of Moberly v. Deskin, 169 Mo. App. 672, 155 S.W. 842 (1913) — Published. An “Automatic Gum Vender” showed in advance what the next play would yield. The defense argued each nickel was a separate sale with no chance because the player knew the result. The court called that view “unsound”: the preview was “a distinction without a substantial difference,” and the machine was intended to “allure the player into continuing to play in the hope that the next time the finger would point to trade checks.” Closely analogous on a prize-preview / separate-sale theory. Materially distinguishable because it is a 1913 municipal prosecution of a gum-and-check vender, not a software-enforced accept/decline architecture with a free decline and cent redemption. Still cited by the Eastern District of Missouri in 2026 as living authority that a prize viewer does not save a gambling device.
  • TNT Amusements, Inc. v. Torch Electronics, LLC, No. 4:23-CV-330-JAR (E.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 2026) — Federal declaratory judgment applying Missouri law. Banilla “No Chance Game” terminals used finite shuffled prize-multiplier pools, a random start index, reverse-mapped reel graphics, an optional prize viewer showing only the next dollar amount, and no redemption below $1.00. Jury found Torch’s “no chance” and “not a gambling device” statements false. Court declared the devices “gambling devices” under § 572.010 and illegal outside a licensed casino. Independent grounds: (1) usable without the viewer; (2) pay-through of $0 turns and trapped cents; (3) even consistent viewer use stakes on the next unseen result; (4) random visual outcome; (5) Deskin. Closely analogous on Banilla prize-viewer cabinets and the usable / future-contingent-event theories. Materially distinguishable because the viewer was optional, decline-to-skip was not free, cents were trapped, and reels were reverse-mapped by RNG. Not a Missouri appellate holding and not a test of mandatory pre-reveal plus no-charge decline plus predetermined reels plus cent redemption.
  • State v. Integrity Vending, LLC, No. 19AE-CR00948-01 (Platte Cnty. Cir. Ct. 2020) — Trial-court felony conviction for promoting gambling in the first degree by operating Banilla no-chance machines with a prize viewer. Fine imposed; no appeal; machines later publicly destroyed. Alcohol and Tobacco Control’s 2020 circular treated the conviction as final. Partially analogous on the same machine family. Not appellate precedent. An allegation or trial conviction is not a reported appellate holding on NCG’s complete architecture.
  • Torch Electronics, LLC v. Missouri Department of Public Safety, 694 S.W.3d 548 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) — Western District dismissed Torch’s state declaratory-judgment action without deciding whether the devices were legal, holding the suit was not a proper vehicle for interpreting criminal gambling law. Transfer to the Supreme Court was denied. Not applicable as a merits test of any architecture.
  • Thole v. Westfall, 682 S.W.2d 33 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984); In re Omega Brand, 676 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984); Chandler v. Hemeyer, 49 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) — Video poker and slot-style cabinets awarding replay credits or tracked payoffs held gambling devices under the material-degree test and the usable-device definition. Partially analogous on chance and “something of value.” Not applicable as tests of mandatory pre-reveal accept/decline.
  • Harris v. Missouri Gaming Commission, 869 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. banc 1994); Akin v. Missouri Gaming Commission, 956 S.W.2d 261 (Mo. banc 1997) — Harris held games of chance are lotteries under Article III, § 39(9) unless skill predominates; land-based casino gambling remained unconstitutional. Voters later adopted § 39(e) (1994) and the boats-in-moats amendment (1998). Akin confined games of chance to facilities upon the rivers until the 1998 text. Partially analogous on the constitutional lottery / chance framework. Not applicable as a test of NCG transaction timing.
  • State ex inf. McKittrick v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co., 341 Mo. 862, 110 S.W.2d 705 (banc 1937); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Danforth, 455 S.W.2d 505 (Mo. banc 1970) — Lottery = consideration, chance, prize. Mobil Oil treated a no-purchase promotional game as a lottery. Partially analogous on elements. Materially distinguishable from a disclosed accept/decline cash terminal.
  • Missouri Gaming Commission general-counsel letter (July 2019) examining an NCG 2 cabinet — Concluded the machines were gambling devices and slot machines under § 572.010(5) and (11); operating them at a VFW would violate §§ 572.030, 572.040, and 572.070; reveal before first play and nominal skill “does not remove the devices.” Quoted in Torch. Agency opinion, not a judicial holding, and not an approval of any cash-prize terminal.

Enforcement and regulatory activity (not judicial approval)

The Missouri Gaming Commission refers unlicensed-device matters to the Attorney General and local prosecutors and provides technical support to the Highway Patrol Gaming Division. Integrity Vending’s 2020 felony conviction is final. Attorney General Hanaway filed Merchandising Practices Act and nuisance suits on February 10, 2026, against Dunklin County retailers operating alleged VLTs and fishing-table games, coordinated with felony charges by the local prosecutor. Alcohol and Tobacco Control warned licensees after Integrity Vending. We did not identify an Attorney General opinion approving mandatory pre-reveal, accept/decline, cash-redemption terminals. Absence of a decision testing this complete architecture is not a judicial determination of legality.

Critical distinction

“No reported Missouri appellate decision directly testing this architecture” is materially different from “A Missouri court has ruled this architecture legal.” Neither statement has been found true here. Deskin is the closest published Missouri analogue on preview-as-sale. Torch is the closest modern application of § 572.010 to Banilla prize-viewer cabinets—and it is adverse on optional reveal, pay-through, usable-device, and next-result chance. Both must be addressed as facts, not labels.

No direct Missouri appellate precedent identified
Strongest contrary arguments

What Missouri prosecutors and regulators could argue.

1. Deskin already rejected preview-as-sale

A published 1913 opinion treated a machine that showed the next prize in advance as a gambling device and called the separate-transaction theory unsound because the preview allures the next play. The Eastern District of Missouri treated Deskin as living authority in 2026. Counsel must explain—with facts, not branding—why a mandatory disclose-and-decline sequence is legally different from that allure.

2. Torch applied § 572.010 to Banilla “No Chance Game” cabinets

A federal court declared those terminals gambling devices illegal outside licensed casinos. Independent holdings include the usable-without-viewer standard, pay-through of losing turns, trapped cents, random visual mapping, and staking on the next unseen result even by players who use the viewer. A district-court declaration is not Missouri Supreme Court precedent, but prosecutors and the MGC will quote it.

3. “Usable” does not require every play to be a hidden wager

§ 572.010(5) reaches devices used or usable in gambling. If any path—skipped reveal, session deposit, or next-offer uncertainty—looks like staking on chance, the cabinet can be a gambling device even if some transactions are disclosed sales.

4. Material-degree chance and future contingent events

§ 572.010(3)–(4) do not require a chance-only or dominant-factor win for criminal gambling. Sequence uncertainty about the next offer may be charged as a future contingent event not under the player’s control. Harris’s constitutional skill-predominant test is for the lottery bar; it does not create a retail skill-game license, and cash cabinets with operator-assigned pools will be characterized as games of chance.

5. Riverboat exclusivity and the constitutional lottery bar

Article III, § 39(9) still forbids unauthorized lotteries. § 39(e) confines games of chance to excursion gambling boats on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers (including specified artificial spaces). § 39(f) confines paid raffles and sweepstakes to qualifying charitable or religious organizations. There is no Chapter 313 license for a convenience-store cash cabinet. Harris and Akin confirm land-based games of chance remain outside the authorized channels.

6. Promotion is a class E felony if the cabinet is a slot machine

§ 572.030(1) makes setting up any slot machine first-degree promoting gambling—no $100 daily-handle threshold. Second-degree promotion is a class A misdemeanor (§ 572.040). Device possession is a class A misdemeanor (§ 572.070). Stake money and devices are seizable and, if they have no legitimate use, publicly destroyed (§ 513.660). Liquor-licensed locations face ATC action.

7. Current AG, MGC, and Highway Patrol posture

The MGC’s 2019 letter already rejected reveal-before-play on Banilla NCG cabinets. Integrity Vending’s felony conviction is final. Attorney General Hanaway’s February 2026 Dunklin County suits target unlicensed retail machines under the Merchandising Practices Act and nuisance theories, coordinated with felony charges. Presentation that resembles slots will invite the same investigative path even if backend logic differs.

NCG factual responses and residual risk

Responses: at acceptance the monetary result is fixed and known; declines cost nothing and do not require playing through a $0 turn; cents are redeemable; reveal is mandatory and non-bypassable; reels are predetermined rather than reverse-mapped by RNG; Torch and Integrity Vending involved optional viewers and pay-through mechanics; Deskin did not involve a free decline after exact cost-and-result disclosure; the amusement exclusion is not the NCG theory—the timing of § 572.010(4) “upon the outcome” is. Residual risk: published Deskin authority, a 2026 federal declaration on Banilla prize-viewer cabinets, the usable-device standard, a material-degree / future-contingent-event definition, constitutional riverboat exclusivity, class E felony slot-machine promotion, seizure and public destruction, and active AG/MGC/Patrol enforcement remain material pending Missouri counsel review. The timing distinction is supportable; it is not settled.

DeskinAdverse authority must be addressed, not dismissed
Complete transaction analysis

Chronology: when is the player financially committed?

“The player accepts or declines a fully disclosed, predetermined transaction. No later random event alters the monetary result. The legal question is whether Missouri treats that sequence as staking value upon a contest of chance or a future contingent event under § 572.010(4)—or as something materially different from the preview machines in Deskin and the optional prize-viewer cabinets in Torch.”

This is the position to test—not a Missouri legal conclusion. Compare to Deskin (see the next prize, then deposit a nickel; still a gambling device) and Torch (optional viewer; pay through $0; trapped cents; usable as a slot; next unseen result still chance).

  1. 1 / POOLFinite pool predetermined
  2. 2 / REQUESTPlayer requests next offer
  3. 3 / REVEALExact result disclosed
  4. 4 / TERMSCost and result both known
  5. 5 / CHOICEAccept or decline
  6. 6 / SETTLENo post-accept RNG
  7. 7 / EXITRedeem remaining cents
Authorities

Primary Missouri sources.

Verified . Binding precedent and statutes distinguished from federal applications of state law, trial convictions, and executive guidance.

  1. [1]
    Missouri statute · definitions

    RSMo § 572.010 ↗

    Contest of chance (material degree); gambling as staking value on chance or a future contingent event not under the player’s control; gambling device (used or usable); lottery (consideration, chance, prize); slot machine; something of value. Amusement exception limited to immediate, non-exchangeable replay. Licensed Chapter 313 activity carved out. Effective 1 Jan 2017 recodification of the 1977/1992 definitions. Official Revisor text.

  2. [2]
    Missouri Constitution · lottery and riverboats

    Mo. Const. art. III, § 39(9) ↗

    General Assembly may not authorize lotteries except as provided in §§ 39(b), 39(c), 39(e), and 39(f). Lottery or gift enterprise means games in which money or value is exchanged directly for the ticket or chance to participate. See also § 39(e) (games of chance on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, including specified boats in moats) and § 39(f) (charitable or religious raffles and sweepstakes).

  3. [3]
    Missouri Court of Appeals · published / preview machines

    City of Moberly v. Deskin, 169 Mo. App. 672 ↗

    155 S.W. 842 (1913). Prize-preview gum vender held a gambling device; “each play is a separate sale” theory called unsound; preview treated as a distinction without a substantial difference because the machine allures continued play. Relied on by the Eastern District of Missouri in 2026.

  4. [4]
    U.S. District Court, E.D. Mo. · federal application of § 572.010

    TNT Amusements v. Torch Electronics, No. 4:23-CV-330-JAR ↗

    (E.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 2026). Banilla “No Chance Game” terminals with optional prize viewer declared gambling devices under § 572.010 and illegal outside a licensed casino. Not a Missouri appellate holding. Distinguishes optional viewer, pay-through zeros, trapped cents, and reverse-mapped RNG from a mandatory disclose-and-free-decline design.

  5. [5]
    Missouri statute · promotion

    RSMo § 572.030 ↗

    Promoting gambling in the first degree—class E felony—for setting up and operating any slot machine, or other devices or lottery activity over the statutory dollar thresholds. Effective 1 Jan 2017.

  6. [6]
    Missouri Supreme Court · lottery elements

    State ex inf. McKittrick v. Globe-Democrat, 341 Mo. 862 ↗

    110 S.W.2d 705 (banc 1937). Lottery elements: consideration, prize, and chance. See also Mobil Oil Corp. v. Danforth, 455 S.W.2d 505 (Mo. banc 1970) (promotional game treated as a lottery even where some play required no purchase).

  7. [7]
    Missouri statute · seizure and forfeiture

    RSMo § 513.660 ↗

    Formerly § 572.120 (transferred 2014; effective 1 Jan 2017). Gambling devices, records, and stake money may be seized and forfeited; devices with no legitimate use ordered publicly destroyed. Cases decided before the transfer cite § 572.120.

  8. [8]
    Missouri Court of Appeals · published / devices

    Thole v. Westfall, 682 S.W.2d 33 ↗

    (Mo. App. E.D. 1984). Video poker and slot-style cabinets awarding replay credits held gambling devices; chance measured from the player’s point of view; usable-device definition applied. See also In re Omega Brand, 676 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984); Chandler v. Hemeyer, 49 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001).

  9. [9]
    Missouri statute · devices

    RSMo § 572.070 ↗

    Possession of a gambling device—class A misdemeanor—for manufacturing, selling, transporting, placing, or possessing a slot machine, or any other gambling device knowing or having reason to believe it will be used to advance unlawful gambling in Missouri.

  10. [10]
    Missouri statute · second-degree promotion

    RSMo § 572.040 ↗

    Promoting gambling in the second degree—class A misdemeanor—for knowingly advancing or profiting from unlawful gambling or lottery activity.

  11. [11]
    Missouri statute · gambling offense

    RSMo § 572.020 ↗

    Knowingly engaging in gambling—class C misdemeanor (class A misdemeanor for a professional player; class B misdemeanor if with a child under 17). Effective 1 Jan 2017 (professional-player enhancement reduced from the former class D felony).

  12. [12]
    Missouri Supreme Court · constitutional chance / riverboats

    Harris v. Missouri Gaming Commission, 869 S.W.2d 58 ↗

    (Mo. banc 1994). Games of chance are lotteries under Article III, § 39(9) unless skill predominates; land-based casino gambling remained unconstitutional. Superseded in part by the 1994/1998 § 39(e) riverboat amendments. See Akin v. Missouri Gaming Commission, 956 S.W.2d 261 (Mo. banc 1997).

  13. [13]
    Missouri statute · licensed riverboat gaming

    RSMo §§ 313.800, 313.805 ↗

    Definitions and Missouri Gaming Commission powers for excursion gambling boats. Games of chance on a boat require constitutional authorization. Commission may confiscate unauthorized games and refer violations to the Attorney General and local prosecutors. Official Revisor text; § 313.800 current through 2022.

  14. [14]
    Missouri Court of Appeals · no merits holding

    Torch Electronics v. Missouri DPS, 694 S.W.3d 548 ↗

    (Mo. App. W.D. 2024). Dismissed Torch’s state declaratory-judgment action without deciding device legality; not a proper vehicle for interpreting criminal gambling law. Transfer denied. Not a test of NCG architecture.

  15. [15]
    Missouri Attorney General · enforcement (not a holding)

    AG Hanaway, illegal gaming-machine suits ↗

    Feb. 10, 2026. Merchandising Practices Act and nuisance suits against Dunklin County retailers alleged to operate VLTs and fishing-table games; coordinated with local felony charges. Allegations and filings, not judicial holdings on pre-reveal architecture. See also ATC industry circular on no-chance / gray machines after Integrity Vending (Platte Cnty. Cir. Ct. 2020).

Disclaimer: This brief is research and issue-spotting for professional discussion—not legal advice, Missouri Gaming Commission approval, riverboat or lottery authorization, or permission to operate. No Missouri Attorney General opinion specifically addressing mandatory pre-reveal NCG architecture was identified. Torch (E.D. Mo. 2026) is a federal district-court declaration applying state law, not a Missouri appellate holding. Integrity Vending is a trial-court conviction. § 513.660 was numbered § 572.120 before the 2014 transfer. Missouri counsel should verify all citations, effective dates, local enforcement practices, compact and lottery exclusivity questions, whether Torch has been appealed, and the actual deployed software before any compliance representation.