Pace-O-Matic
Coverage of Pace-O-Matic in the Nexus archive.
- Pittsburgh wants to tax skill games – but the real question is whether to limit them
Pittsburgh City Council approved a $1,000 annual tax per skill game machine after Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled in June 2026 that these devices are gambling devices. The state legislature is also considering taxation schemes, while debates continue over regulating skill games that combine monetary stakes with skill-based elements.
- Skill games decision in Pa. could ban arcade games without legislative regulation
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled skill games unlawful, creating uncertainty for businesses and potentially affecting traditional arcade games at venues like Chuck E. Cheese and Dave & Busters. The decision challenges whether games like Skee-Ball and claw machines qualify as gambling devices, with lawmakers urged to regulate and tax these games to resolve legal ambiguity.
- Amid Concerns Over Violence, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Declares Skill Games Illegal
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled skill games illegal under state gambling laws, citing concerns over violence and crime linked to the machines. The decision, stayed for 120 days, overturns previous rulings that exempted the games due to their skill-based elements, with lawmakers expected to address legalization and regulation.
- Pa. lawmakers renew push to regulate, tax skill games after high court ruling
Pennsylvania lawmakers are pushing to regulate and tax skill games following the state Supreme Court's ruling declaring the devices illegal. The decision, which came ahead of the June 30 budget deadline, has intensified efforts to address the proliferation of skill games in stores, with bipartisan hopes for legislative action. Governor Josh Shapiro and House Democrats have emphasized the need for a resolution.
- Skill games are unlawful, Pennsylvania Supreme Court finds
Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled skill games are unlawful under the state's Gaming Act and Crimes Code, overturning prior lower court decisions that allowed their proliferation. The 4-2 majority opinion criticized the games' widespread presence in various establishments, while Pace-O-Matic, the company producing the games, expressed disappointment. The state Attorney General hailed the decision as a victory for legal oversight and consumer protection.