Board’s powers. Id. at 208. In Baker, supra at 207, the defendant expressly repre sented to the public that its computer system would prevent adverse drug interactions. In the present case, by contrast, defendants did not expressly represent to the public or anybody else that there was a one in twenty-two chance of landing on any one of the twenty-two bonus wheel payouts, including the one-thousand-coin payout. Plaintiff alleges that the actual appearance and operation of the slot machines mislead players. Because the MGCB regulates the operation of the slot machines and also determines whether the machines are misleading, defendant’s operation of the slot machines at issue in this case was specifically authorized by the MGCB. C. PLAINTIFF’S COMMON-LAW CLAIMS ARE NW2d 396 (1997) (<HOLDING>). However, notwithstanding traditional notions
holding that the plaintiffs state commonlaw tort claims were preempted by the national motor vehicle safety act 15 usc 1381 et seq holding that prejudgment interest ordinarily should be awarded on damages pursuant to claims under the copyright act of 1909 17 usc  1 et seq 1976 ed superceded by the copyright act of 1976 17 usc  101 et seq holding buckhannon applicable to the fair credit reporting act 15 usc  1681 et seq which authorizes attorneys fees for prevailing parties holding that denial of vsf benefits to disabled retirees does not violate the ada the rehabilitation act 29 usc  791 et seq or the age discrimination in employment act of 1967 29 usc  621 et seq and that plaintiffs due process and first amendment claims were frivolous holding the state law claims were not preempted