Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Sep. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Lawsuits and claims are filed against the Company from time to time in the ordinary course of business, including related to employee matters, employment of professionals and non-compete clauses and agreements. Other than settled matters explained as follows, these actions are in various stages, and no judgments or decisions have been rendered. Management, after reviewing matters with legal counsel, believes that the outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. The Company has been involved in a series of related litigated matters stemming from claims that it wrongly contracted with 10 different licensed establishments (the “Defendant Establishments”) in 2012 in violation of the contractual rights held by J&J Ventures Gaming, LLC (“J&J”), as further described below. On August 21, 2012, one of the Company’s operating subsidiaries entered into certain agreements with Jason Rowell (“Rowell”), a member of Action Gaming LLC (“Action Gaming”), which was an unlicensed terminal operator that had exclusive rights to place and operate gaming terminals within a number of establishments, including the Defendant Establishments. Under agreements with Rowell, the Company agreed to pay him for each licensed establishment which decided to enter into an exclusive location agreement with Accel. In late August and early September 2012, each of the Defendant Establishments signed a separate location agreement with the Company, purporting to grant the Company the exclusive right to operate gaming terminals in those establishments. Separately, on August 24, 2012, Action Gaming sold and assigned its rights to all its location agreements to J&J, including its exclusive rights with the Defendant Establishments (the “J&J Assigned Agreements”). At the time of the assignment of such rights to J&J, the Defendant Establishments were not yet licensed by the Illinois Gaming Board (“IGB”). As a result of subsequent litigation, the Supreme Court of Illinois determined that the IGB has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the validity and enforceability of gaming terminal use agreements, including the J&J Assignment Agreements. Between May 2017 and September 2017, both the Company and J&J filed petitions with the IGB seeking adjudication of the rights of the parties and the validity of the J&J Assignment Agreements. Those petitions were recently adjudicated by the IGB, largely in the Company’s favor, and J&J has filed two new lawsuits to challenge the IGB’s rulings. J&J lost at both the trial court and appellate court level and recently filed a petition with the Illinois Supreme Court seeking permission for a further appeal. The petition for leave to appeal was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court. The second case is awaiting a ruling at the trial court level. The Company does not have a present estimate regarding the potential damages, if any, that could potentially be awarded in this litigation and, accordingly, has established no reserves relating to such matters. On March 9, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Gold Rush relating to the Gold Rush convertible notes. The complaint sought damages for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as unjust enrichment. On June 22, 2022, Gold Rush filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against the Company. The lawsuit alleged that the Company tortiously interfered with Gold Rush’s business activities and engaged in misconduct with respect to the Gold Rush convertible notes. Both suits were dismissed with prejudice as a result of the previously mentioned settlement between the Company and Gold Rush on the convertible notes in May 2023. For more information, see Note 4. On March 25, 2022, Midwest Electronics Gaming LLC (“Midwest”) filed an administrative review action against the IGB, the Company and J&J in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois seeking administrative review of decisions of the IGB ruling in favor of the Company and J&J and against Midwest regarding the validity of certain use agreements covering locations currently serviced by Midwest. No monetary damages are sought against the Company. The Company filed a motion to dismiss Midwest’s amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part. The Company moved for summary judgment, and the trial court heard argument in January 2025. The judge granted and denied, in part, the motion for summary judgment. The parties are proceeding with discovery. In July 2022, an enforcement action was brought against the Company by an Illinois municipality related to an alleged violation of an ordinance requiring the collection of an additional tax, the enforceability of which is currently being contested by the Illinois Gaming Machine Operators Association. Rather than litigate the alleged violation, the Company pleaded no contest and has made the appropriate payments to the municipality during 2024 and 2025. In February 2023, an Illinois municipality issued an order against the Company for the alleged failure to pay a terminal operator tax (“TO Tax”) for the privilege of operating gaming terminals within the municipality. The TO Tax was adopted by the municipality on June 8, 2021, but there was no enforcement of this tax until the Company was issued a notice of hearing in February 2023. In April 2023, the Company, along with numerous other terminal operators, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois contesting the validity and enforceability of the TO Tax and won a temporary restraining order to stay the order. Currently, the matter remains pending as a result of a motion to consolidate and to finalize the assignment of the judge. On March 21, 2025, the judge ruled in favor of the Company and a coalition of terminal operators’ motion for judgment on the pleadings that the municipality ordinance was pre-empted by State law as well as the other 54 municipal push tax ordinances. The cases were all dismissed, and the municipality’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The municipality has filed a motion for leave to appeal with the appellate court.