Nevada Plans to Stop Banned Gamblers from Collecting Jackpots

The gambling regulator in Nevada will review a new proposal that seeks to bar banned gamblers from getting paid jackpots at venues across the state.

Banned Patrons May Not Collect Jackpots Under the New Policy

The issue was brought to the attention of the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) in light of a growing number of disputes between casinos and patrons related to trespassing when a player is banned from the property but goes back and wins a jackpot.

In one such recent case, the Casa Blanca Resort was required to pay a banned visitor a $2,045 jackpot they won last year. However, that move was following the existing regulatory framework which may soon undergo changes, effectively preventing banned patrons from claiming jackpots.

As announced by CDC Gaming, a proposal with the NGCB seeks to empower casinos to discontinue jackpot payments to winners who previously have been banned from casinos. Besides patrons barred from certain properties, the proposal seeks to enforce the same authority against individuals who were added to Nevada’s “Black Book.”

The so-called “Black Book” consists of a list of individuals banned from every casino in Nevada. A person can land on that list for a number of reasons, including “notorious or unsavory reputation.” In case that happens, the person is not welcome in any of the state’s casinos and has a life-long ban.

Feedback from the Casino Industry Will Be Required

The new proposal will undergo debate during an upcoming meeting of the NGCB. The regulator will discuss the proposal with the gambling industry prior to formally voting for or against the change.

Still, Board members are not in a hurry to implement the policy as there are details that need to be confirmed. For example, under the proposal, casinos won’t be required to repay losses that led to hitting the jackpot. However, they would have to pay back only the exact wager that triggered the jackpot.

On the other hand, land-based and online casino operators will also have to change their policies if the proposal receives approval. They would have to display language related to the new policy at entrances but that’s only if the proposal doesn’t undergo changes prior to its final draft.

There’s Still Questions to Be Answered

Questions still arise as Brittnie Watkins, one of NGCB’s members, wondered if the proposed change would affect affiliated casinos or solely a single property where the patron is banned. In a response to Watkins’ query, Nevada Senior Deputy Attorney General Mike Somps explained that whether or not the ban would affect affiliate properties would depend on the exact wording of the policy.

NGCB’s chair, Kirk Hendrick, was delighted to see the sector turn to the regulator with this issue. He spoke about the stress that comes with an excessive workload at the NGCB and the high number of appeals between casinos and patrons.

Hendrick hinted that Nevada legislators may also consider changes in order to resolve such disputes. “We don’t have the staff to handle trespassers’ claiming multiple scenarios on how they were trespassed and how they were noticed. That’s an issue between the property and alleged trespasser,” he added.