Harrah’s could take an $8M hit for promotion

ATLANTIC CITY - It was Debra Smerling's birthday, but 80,000 others around the country may help her celebrate it after a judge ruled that casinos owned by Harrah's Entertainment Inc. sent them misleading advertisements promising "birthday cash."

Because the ads did not explicitly state that the $15 vouchers could not be redeemed until after 8 a.m. on the days in question, tens of thousands of recipients are entitled to $100 each in damages - a potential $8 million hit to the casino giant's bottom line.

It started on Sat., Aug. 9, 2003, when Smerling went to Harrah's Atlantic City clutching a voucher she received offering $15 for her birthday as part of the casino's "Total Rewards" customer-loyalty promotion. The card was good on Sun., Aug. 10.

At 12:30 a.m. Sunday, she tried to redeem the voucher. But the casino refused, saying it was not good until 8 a.m. Refusing to wait 7 1/2 hours to claim $15, she left and filed a class-action lawsuit.

Earlier this month, a state Superior Court judge in Middlesex County ruled that Harrah's had violated New Jersey truth-in-advertising laws.

Notices are going out to 350,000 people nationwide who qualify to be part of the class-action suit. Of those, about 80,000 who successfully redeemed their vouchers are entitled to cash payments of $100 each, said Andrew Wolf, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The others will be told they have the right to file their own lawsuits against Harrah's seeking damages if they were similarly rebuffed when trying to cash in their vouchers.

Harrah's "can have whatever policy they like, but they have to let people know about it" in advance, Wolf said.

The card said it was to be presented at the Total Rewards Center. The center's hours of operation were listed as 8 a.m. to midnight Sunday through Friday, and 8 a.m. until 2 a.m. Saturday.

Marybel Batjer, a spokesman for Harrah's Entertainment, said the company planned to appeal the ruling.

"We are very disappointed in the judge's ruling. We believe it is an incorrect application of the law," she said, declining to comment further.