HB 6068 amends Michigan’s penal code provisions on gaming rooms, slot machines, and related amusement devices. The bill keeps the general prohibition on keeping or maintaining gambling devices or gaming rooms for hire, gain, or reward, but it creates and clarifies several exceptions. It exempts certain mechanical amusement devices that award free replays if they meet specified limits, exempts older slot machines that are at least 25 years old and not used for gambling, and exempts crane games that fit a detailed definition and prize-value cap.
The bill also defines crane games more specifically, requires a conspicuous notice on every crane game stating that it is not licensed or regulated by Michigan, and makes it a felony to knowingly alter a crane game so it no longer meets the statutory definition. Law enforcement is authorized to confiscate noncompliant crane games, and the bill restricts how confiscated machines and their contents may be disposed of. In addition, the bill clarifies that the chapter does not apply to state lottery games, licensed bingo, or gaming conducted under the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act.
HB 6068 would revise Michigan Penal Code sections governing gambling-related devices and enforcement, narrowing the reach of the state’s anti-gaming provisions for certain amusement and regulated gaming activities while strengthening enforcement against deceptive or altered crane games. It would affect operators, arcade and amusement businesses, law enforcement, and prosecutors by setting statutory definitions and penalties for devices that fall outside the exemptions, and by directing how seized property and proceeds are handled under section 308a.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to reflect a mixed but generally regulatory approach: it preserves anti-gambling prohibitions while carving out exceptions for common amusement devices and licensed gaming, suggesting an intent to clarify rather than broadly expand criminal liability.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of the exemptions and the enforcement tools aimed at crane games. Arcade and amusement operators may favor the clearer safe harbors for replay-based machines and crane games, while critics could object to the felony penalty for altering a crane game, the seizure authority, or the possibility that the definition of a compliant crane game could be difficult to administer in practice. Another possible issue is whether the bill’s distinctions between skill-based amusement devices and gambling devices are sufficiently precise to avoid inconsistent enforcement.