Illinois Update

Video gambling in non-casino locations came to Illinois in September, 2012. Eligible bars, truck stops, and other locales can host up to five video gambling terminals in an adults-only portion of their establishments. There are now more than 16,000 video gambling terminals operating in Illinois at a total of more than 4,000 establishments. There is no self-exclusion system in place for gamblers on these machines. These thousands of locations and small-scale operations are cited as reasons that a self-exclusion program would not be implementable, but the fact that the locations are adult-only means that there must already be in place a system capable of checking IDs.

The article linked above (and here) offers a few statistics on Illinois's statewide casino self-exclusion plan. In mid-April, 2014, there were more than 10,600 people on the self-exclusion list. Since the initiation of the program in 2002, "there have been 3,477 instances where self-excluded gamblers had been caught [in violation of their exclusion orders], with 3,399 of the incidents resulting in arrests." Many of these violators are caught when they win a jackpot exceeding $1,200, as the collection of such winnings requires identification. When a "winner" is found to be on the self-excluded list, he or she is not allowed to keep the jackpot. So far, casinos have "confiscated $1.5 million of winnings from self-excluded gamblers, who then get to decide which of three addiction centers their money goes to."

[The headline and the early part of the linked article might be confusing to the Self-Exclusion reader, as these refer to excluding some undesirable people from operating on the supply side of video gambling. The material on voluntary exclusions for gamblers comes later in the article.]

A New Low in Self-Exclusion Enforcement?

Many people who place themselves on self-exclusion lists attempt to return to casinos and gamble, in violation of their exclusion agreements, and often in the face of a potential arrest for trespassing. In the absence of regulatory oversight (or the potential for litigation), casinos would seem to have a profit incentive to turn a blind eye to these transgressions by some of their best, albeit excluded, customers. But there generally is such regulatory oversight, as Philadelphia's SugerHouse Casino found out in December, 2012, when it agreed to a $10,000 fine, in part for allowing a self-excluded gambler to gamble in its casino -- twice, with the second occasion involving a nearly four-day marathon session. The same fellow came back in February, 2013, and was uncovered by the casino as being on the excluded list as he was approaching three full days (including a nap in his car) of another protracted betting fest. Apparently he never gambled in one spot for very long, but still.... More details here and here.

No Class-Action For Canadian Self-Excluders II

In Ontario, the Court of Appeal has affirmed earlier rulings that gamblers who self-excluded, but who were not effectively kept away from continued casino gambling, can not pursue a class action lawsuit against the casino operators, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation. The court upheld the trial judge's reasoning that potential liability was dependent on personal circumstances, so that the members of the would-be class were not sufficiently similarly situated to justify class certification. Individual lawsuits can still proceed, of course, and many in the past have led to substantial settlements.

Self-Exclusion noted the trial court ruling back in 2010, followed last year by the Court of Appeal's announcement of its willingness to hear the appeal. Here's a short video (with links to two more videos) on self-exclusion provided by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.

The Ineffectively Excluded Win the Right to Sue as a Class

Back in August, 2012, Self-Exclusion noted that the Ontario (Canada) Supreme Court was willing to hear an appeal from self-excluded gamblers as to whether they could proceed with a class-action suit. The class would consist of gamblers who placed themselves on the excluded list, but who subsequently broke their exclusion order by returning to a casino to gamble.
 
But Ontario is not the only province in Canada that is facing this issue. The British Columbia Supreme Court now has spoken on a similar case, ruling that the gamblers may indeed proceed with their class-action suit. In this instance, however, the class is not simply those who continued to gamble after self-excluding. Rather, the class is a subset of those stealthy gamblers who at some point were not allowed to collect a jackpot that they had won, once it was learned they were on the excluded list.

One of the complicating factors in this case is that originally, the forfeiture of winnings was not an element of the self-exclusion system in British Columbia. This feature was added on April 1, 2009, as a method of increasing the deterrence of gambling for those on the excluded list. The named plaintiffs in the current case self-excluded before jackpot denial was an element of the exclusion plan, but won their jackpots after the implementation of the scheme. (Though they won a few (denied) jackpots, in overall terms, both of the gamblers lost quite a bit of money gambling while excluded.)

The court decision re-iterates that the British Columbia exclusion system was constantly being tested by excluded gamblers. (Self-Exclusion noted this issue some years ago.) One of the plaintiffs was caught attempting to gamble in breach of his order some 15 times. Here is the section of the Court opinion entitled "Enforcement of the VSE Program":

[39]         As of October 2011, there were approximately 6,300 persons enrolled in the VSE program.

[40]         Until mid-June 2009, BCLC’s primary means of enforcing the VSE Program was to rely on the ability of security staff at gaming facilities to recognize VSE Program participants by sight.

[41]         In June 2009, BCLC started using license plate recognition to identify VSE Program participants. Since its introduction, this technology has led to almost 4,000 entry denials or removals of VSE Program participants.

[42]         From 2007 until October 2011, VSE Program participants were denied entry or removed from gaming facilities on more than 36,750 occasions.

[43]         Between April 1, 2009, and June 3, 2010, Jackpot Prizes were withheld from 105 VSE Program participants on 113 different occasions.

[44]         Between June 4, 2010, and July 4, 2012, a total of 187 Jackpot Prizes were withheld from VSE Program participants.

Incidentally, the jackpots that are withheld from excluded gamblers are not kept by the casino; rather, they are donated to a third party.

Note that the recent court decision remains a far cry from requiring that the old jackpots be given to excluded gamblers; it only allows them to form a class to try their luck in court. They still must show that the British Columbia Lottery Corporation breached a contract with the excluded gamblers, or behaved in an unconscionable fashion.

Gamblefree Day and Kiwi Third-Party Exclusions

For the last eight years, September 1 has been Gamblefree Day in New Zealand, when problem gambling is highlighted. One of the methods that New Zealand has adopted to combat problem gambling is self-exclusion. The guidelines for exclusion seem very sophisticated, and they include provisions for casinos to involuntarily exclude suspected problem gamblers and for family members and other third parties to raise a call for increased scrutiny that could lead to an involuntary exclusion. As the guidelines note, "One of the most common indicators of problem gambling is notification from a relation, friend or family member of the patron." Many areas of New Zealand allow for multi-venue exclusions. In July, one locale with pokie machines was forced to turn off the machines for two days because a gambler seeking exclusion was not, in fact, excluded.

Skycity operates hotels and casinos in New Zealand. If a Skycity casino wants to exclude a suspected problem gambler, it gives the gambler a chance to voluntarily self-exclude first -- but given that a refusal to self-exclude will lead to an imposed two-year ban, it is hard to endorse the notion that such an exclusion is fully voluntary.

New Zealand also promotes responsible gambling by requiring slot machines to display a clock and the amount won or lost, along with reminders to take breaks.

Class Action Back in Play for Ontario's Self-Excluders

A couple years ago Self-Exclusion noted that a Canadian court had refused to certify Ontario's self-excluded casino gamblers as a class for the purpose of a suit against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLGC). The claim is that the OLGC neglected a duty of care to prevent the self-excluded from violating their order by returning to casinos and gambling. (The significant revenue emanating from self-excluded gamblers who continue to gamble certainly could be a spur to mixed motives on the part of casinos or taxation authorities.) The court ruled that individual lawsuits could go forward (and some have been successful, in terms of monetary settlements), but that the circumstances of the self-excluded gamblers were sufficiently diverse that class status was inappropriate. That decision from two years ago was upheld once on appeal -- but now Ontario's highest court has agreed to hear an appeal of the earlier rulings.

In 2011, Ontario rolled out facial recognition systems to help enforce self-exclusion bans.

The responsible gaming section of the OLGC website offers links to some valuable videos discussing self-exclusion, as well as videos aimed at combating common gambling fallacies.

Australia, Singapore, Britain Self-Exclusion Updates

(1) Australia continues to develop its program to allow gamblers to self-exclude from many venues simultaneously. They can choose whether to ban themselves from the entire club premises, or those parts of clubs where any gambling takes place, or only the rooms where pokie machines operate. (Self-Exclusion first noted this ongoing process some months ago.) The program was trialled in March, and expanded in New South Wales a couple months later. Australia is not immune from the common problem that the enforcement of self-exclusion agreements is spotty: some excluded patrons manage to gamble in violation of their agreements.

(2) Singapore is thinking of enhancing its problem gambling protections for citizens and permanent residents. "Under the proposed new regulation, any Singaporean (and [permanent resident]) who visits the casino more than five times in a given a month is considered a “high frequency” gambler. It may compel him to show that he is not in financial distress before being allowed to visit it the sixth time." (Casino visits are tracked in the Netherlands, too, and frequent gamblers are approached by staff to help assess the possibility of self-control issues and impose visit limits (see 35-page pdf here).) The linked article also notes that despite hosting only two casinos ("Integrated Resorts"), Singapore gambling revenues exceed those of Las Vegas, trailing only Macau on that metric. Singaporean locals have to pay a per-visit casino entrance fee of about $80, or purchase an annual casino pass for approximately $1600.

(3) The manifold shortcomings of the enforcement of self-exclusion in Britain are noted in this article. A bounty system for staff who identify a self-excluded gambler might be one element of improved enforcement.

Self-Reporting Self-Exclusion Enforcement Lapses

The purposely enigmatic title of this post refers to those occasions when a self-excluded gambler sneaks back into the casino, or is sent promotional material that is verboten under the exclusion agreement. The problem is, of course, that excluded gamblers are among the best customers for a casino. Casino owners, therefore, would seem to have a significant monetary incentive to look the other way when a self-excluder presents him or herself at the gambling venue. To counter this incentive, regulators subject casinos to fines when they fail to enforce exclusion agreements. An Illinois casino once was fined $800,000 for marketing to self-excluded customers.

The newest (and most popular) Illinois casino is the Rivers Casino in Des Plaines, which opened in July, 2011. It was a little slow in figuring out this self-exclusion thing, though: "In its first few weeks of operation, the northwest suburban casino sent promotional materials to four people, authorized two cash advances to one person and issued players’ rewards cards to seven others, all of whom are in the self-exclusion program, said Gene O’Shea, spokesman for the Illinois Gaming Board." The fine was $25,000, which represents a discount due to the self-reporting of the violations.

Attempted violations of self-exclusion orders are common. Rivers Casino, according to the linked article, caught 149 people on the self-exclusion list at the casino premises through March 1, 2012.

Don't Use a Fake ID to Gamble in Singapore...

...at least if you are on the exclusion list. Two gamblers have been arrested for using someone else's ID, allegedly without the permission of the relevant someone elses. "If convicted, they face a fine of up to $10,000, or a jail term of up to 10 years, or both." 

Wow, these sound like cases for a little behavioral triage for problem gambling treatment; these people need help, not prison.

Avoiding and Evading Exclusion Orders

The British Columbia report we lately have been drawing upon (71-page pdf here) indicates that most people who chose to self-exclude from BC casinos nevertheless continued to gamble, and on a somewhat regular (though not daily) basis, during their exclusion. Most of those who gambled during their exclusion did so at casinos, too, although some stuck to lottery games or keno. Many casino visits were made outside of BC, so these trips avoided but did not evade exclusion orders. Most self-exclusion clients did not evade their commitment. Nonetheless, most casino gambling that did take place during exclusion apparently occurred in BC casinos, in violation of exclusion agreements.

The self-exclusion clients generally -- and correctly -- believed that they could sneak back into BC casinos, even if most did not try. Further, those who were caught trying to gamble at a BC casino were escorted out, but generally no further sanction was applied; for the most part, even wins were paid out to excluded gamblers. Attempts to evade exclusion orders were highly skewed, with about ten percent of excluded gamblers persistently (at least weekly) trying to enter BC casinos, and much time of casino security personnel was devoted to trying to track these persistent violators. The BC report, not surprisingly, calls for improved detection and more sanctions for breaking an exclusion order. The additional sanctions should be of the helping, not the punishing variety, in keeping with the "behavioral triage" approach.

Facial Recognition, and Extending Exclusions

In April we noted that Ontario was in the midst of installing cameras tied to facial recognition software to help enforce casino exclusions. Apparently the system is now up and running in 19 of Ontario's 27 casinos, with complete coverage slated by the end of the year. One big hurdle that the proponents of the technology claim to have overcome is safeguarding the information identifying gamblers from intrusions by hackers.

The last line of the linked article indicates one potential penalty that can be applied to a self-excluded gambler who attempts to breach the agreement by sneaking into a casino. The regulatory agency can unilaterally extend the length of the exclusion of such miscreants, turning a voluntary self-exclusion into a third-party, mandated exclusion. I would hope that this move would be complemented with a positive step, an offer of treatment for gambling addiction. People who violate exclusion agreements, particularly ones with non-trivial penalties attached for non-compliance, are indicating that they have relatively serious control problems, perhaps even within the subset of gamblers who exclude -- so there is something to be said for directing treatment resources at these people. Angela Hawken, who promotes the analgous approach for drug users within the criminal justice system, calls such treatment targeting "behavioral triage."

British Columbia Casino ID Checks

In Canada's British Columbia, the drinking age and the minimum age to patronize a casino are both nineteen. A television investigative news team sent two 18 year-olds to four casinos, and at three of the four locations, the youths managed to walk right in, gamble a little, collect their winnings, and get a drink. Turns out the alcohol violation is the more serious offense, and the investigation has spurred a policy change: electronic ID readers will be employed at entrances and on the casino floor. Eventually the readers might be tied to self-exclusion lists, easing the enforcement of exclusion orders.

Enforcing Self-exclusion Through Facial Recognition

Ontario will soon be enforcing self-exclusion at its casinos via face recognition software, it seems. I am all for serious enforcement of self-exclusion programs, but I have to overcome some Big Brother-style fears when it comes to face recognition software. Apparently there are ways of keeping the information private? [PDF version, 23 pages, here.] I am late to this story, of course: here's a newspaper article from January that provides details. Humans will still make the final call on whether to approach a patron whom the computer has identified as on the exclusion list.

Non-Zero-Tolerance

Self-exclusion orders often are limited in duration and in geographic scope, but they are otherwise categorical: an excluded person cannot gamble at all at a place from which he or she has chosen to exclude. In that sense, self-exclusion is an all-or-nothing proposition: either you can gamble under the same regime that governs everyone, or you cannot engage in gambling.

Lots of folks who fear their loss of self-control, however, might not want to renounce their vice of choice entirely. For these people, rules that allow limited indulgence, as opposed to enforcing abstinence, might be preferable to self-exclusion. Many people try to adopt and enforce such rules on their own, through two-drink limits or by only carrying a small amount of cash into a casino. But in the case of gambling, casinos can help, and sometimes they do, by offering special rules, such as voluntary credit limits or opt-outs from gambling on credit altogether. Further, the regulatory structure surrounding gambling can provide some limits, of the not-so-voluntary variety. Until recently, Missouri casinos had a loss limit of $500 per two hours, and $6000 per day (that would be a sufficiently bad day for me). To enforce the limit, every casino-goer needed to present an ID, and would be issued a boarding card. The boarding card would have to be swiped at buy-ins for table games and inserted in a reader during play at electronic games, so that the limit could be enforced. One side effect of operating with mandatory loss limits was that self-exclusion orders could be policed more easily, thanks to the ID requirement. It might be the case that the Missouri self-exclusion program is being undermined by the repeal of the loss-limit regulation.

More on self-limiting behavior in future posts, I hope.

Exclusion By NGO in Macau?

For a place that does a huge gambling business, Macau seems a bit behind the curve in self-exclusion. Apparently only 72 people are part of the state-sponsored program, according to this article in the Macau Daily Times. (Some Macau casinos are connected to global businesses that run their own self-exclusion programs.) But these 72 are not all self-excluded. Rather, like Singapore, Macau allows for family-initiated exclusions. And in one respect, Macau goes further than Singapore: exclusion orders can start from requests by reputable non-governmental organizations:

Director of DICJ, Manuel das Neves, explained to Macau Daily Times the law “is not clear” on what type of exclusions can be imposed besides self-exclusion. So, the Government tries to be flexible about it, accepting also applications presented by relatives – with medical proofs of the person’s pathology - and “credible” and recognized NGOs. Among the latter are organisations from Hong Kong, who have requested that some residents from the neighbouring region are not allowed in Macau casinos.

In the meantime, Singapore's second resort casino, Marina Bay Sands, opened for business last week. Some excluded gamblers in Singapore, as elsewhere, try to defy their bans.

More Casino Exclusion Noncompliance

As effective as casino self-exclusion can be for combating pathological gambling, its implementation often leaves something to be desired: gamblers in some jurisdictions repeatedly enter casinos from which they have excluded without being removed. Recently, casinos in New Jersey and Pennsylvania have been fined for allowing self-excluded individuals to gamble. The transgressive customer in New Jersey used aliases to set up frequent player accounts: thirteen of his fifteen aliases were spotted by the casinos, but two "worked." While the two New Jersey casinos were fined $10,000 each for allowing this self-excluded, pseudonymous person to gamble, they were "allowed to keep the more than $87,000 he lost while gambling there because they did not knowingly allow an excluded player to gamble, the commission said." The self-excluded generally are drawn from the pool of a casino's best customers.

No Class-Action For Canadian Self-Excluders

The interest of casinos in enforcing the ban on self-excluded individuals might be limited: the self-excluded tend to be among the best casino customers. In Ontario, an attempted class-action lawsuit on behalf of more than 10,000 self-excluded gamblers, claiming that insufficient effort was brought to bear in keeping them out of gambling establishments, has been rejected. The judge's ruling does not prevent individual gamblers from bringing lawsuits based on a lack of enforcement of their self-exclusion orders. The class is not certified, however, on the grounds that the gamblers' experiences are sufficiently diverse that they cannot all be considered to be in the same legal boat.