Our network

SAHARA sues Vital Vegas blogger over reports it will close |

Title (Max 100 Characters)

SAHARA sues Vital Vegas blogger over reports it will close

LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — A lawsuit accuses Vital Vegas — a Las Vegas blog about casino and entertainment news — of defamation after social media posts and a web article stated that SAHARA Las Vegas was on the verge of closing permanently.

Vital Vegas founder Scott Roeben, named in the lawsuit, didn’t contact SAHARA representative before posting the report, and has caused distress among employees as the resort scrambles to soothe guests and customers who have booked dates later this year.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Clark County’s 8th Judicial District Court by attorney Mattew J. Weitz on behalf of Las Vegas Resort Holdings, LLC.

A statement from SAHARA Las Vegas spokesperson on Friday:

We regret that Mr. Roeben has forced us to bring a lawsuit as a result of his completely baseless claim published on his Vital Vegas website and through social media, that SAHARA Las Vegas will permanently close in September of this year. We reached out to Mr. Roeben in an effort to have him correct the record, unfortunately his revision of his article and subsequent statements on twitter continue to perpetuate the lie that SAHARA will permanently close. It is clear at this point that Mr. Roeben, through Vital Vegas, seemingly takes joy in continuing to make false claims. His conduct not only has harmed SAHARA, but has caused a great deal of harm to the Vegas community including our team members, our business partners, and valued guests, who have been through so much in the wake of COVID-19.

Recent @vitalvegas tweets about the Sahara have been removed.

The lawsuit also takes issue with a Vital Vegas claim that SAHARA is no longer offering some incentives to its most valuable customers.

The defamation claim cites negligence on Roeben’s part in causing damages in excess of $15,000.

Additional claims say Roeben portrayed SAHARA in a false light, resulting in loss of reputation and “lost business opportunity.” Conspiracy and malicious intent are also cited in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks $15,000 in actual damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees.