Editing Claw machine (section)

===North America===
The passing of the Johnson Act by [[United States Congress|Congress]] in 1951, which prohibited the transfer of electronic gambling devices across state lines, led to Miami Diggers at carnivals being destroyed by operators or seized by government officials. Carnival owner Lee Moss organized other carnival owners together to protest against the classification of the diggers as gambling machines. Because of this, a compromise was soon reached that allowed carnival owners to keep the diggers but required them to be manually operated with no coin slot and prizes that were not money and worth one dollar or less, while the government would tax each machine [[United States dollar|US$]]10. Regulations loosened in 1973 due to the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (FBI) abandoning the Johnson Act.<ref name="mf" /> {{As of|2015}}, state regulations generally require that claw machines contain less valuable prizes.<ref name="vox" /> Most states exempt claw machines from their gambling laws.<ref name="wagm">{{cite web |title=Should arcade claw machines be regulated like gambling? |url=https://www.wagmtv.com/content/news/Should-arcade-claw-machines-be-regulated-like-gambling-390591971.html |website=[[WAGM-TV]] |access-date=7 May 2023 |date=18 August 2016}}</ref>

In California, claw machines are considered slot machines and their ownership and operation are prohibited by Penal Code Section 330b.

In New Jersey, claw machines are regulated by the Legalized Games of Chance Control Commission. In 2016, New Jersey Senator [[Nicholas Scutari]] proposed legislation that would add specifications to prevent claw machines from being unwinnable.<ref name="wagm" /> In response to a spate of lawsuits against California claw game operators, attorney Bob Snyder advised claw machine owners to avoid using the word "skill" in the game description decal present on most machines.<ref name='lawsuits'>{{Cite web | url=http://www.aemllc.com/articles/legislative/skillcraneoperators/skillcraneoperators.php | title=Skill Crane Operators Can Defend Against 'Unfair Practices' Lawsuits | first=Bob | last=Snyder | access-date=2008-07-04 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090511092241/http://www.aemllc.com/articles/legislative/skillcraneoperators/skillcraneoperators.php | archive-date=2009-05-11 | url-status=dead }}</ref>

In other jurisdictions, such as [[Alberta]], [[Canada]], skill cranes are illegal unless the player is allowed to make repeated attempts (on a single credit) until he or she wins a prize.<ref name='alberta-law'>{{Cite news |title=Mere 'dash of skill' makes crane game illegal: court |date=January 29, 2002 |work=National Post |page=A1, 10 |url=http://www.abgaminginstitute.ualberta.ca/nav03.cfm?nav03=26638&nav02=29476&nav01=26038 |access-date=July 10, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070810184113/http://www.abgaminginstitute.ualberta.ca/nav03.cfm?nav03=26638&nav02=29476&nav01=26038 |archive-date=August 10, 2007 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Skill cranes in single-play mode (where the player has only one chance per credit to try for a prize) were found by the [[Ontario]] [[Appellate court|Court of Appeal]] to be essentially games of chance, and therefore prohibited except at [[fair]]s or [[art exhibition|exhibitions]], where they are covered by an exemption.<ref name='ontario-law'>{{Cite journal | last1 = Lipton | first1 = Michael D. | last2 = Lazarus | first2 = Morden C. | last3 = Weber | first3 = Kevin J. | title = Games of Skill and Chance in Canada | doi = 10.1089/glr.2005.9.10 | journal = Gaming Law Review | volume = 9 | pages = 10–18 | year = 2005 }}</ref>