Self Exclusion Programs

While Nevada doesn't have one (last time I checked; 8/10), many states offer a "ban" program where in essence you can sign yourself off every casino in that state. At least two companies (Caesar's and Isle of Capri) ban you from all properties they own worldwide.

Most states have reversal language in their self-exclusion laws but three do not: Iowa, Michigan, and Missouri. Incidentally, the ban is for "life" in each of these states; as opposed to more lenient programs such as New Jersey's selection of one or five year bans, OR life. I've heard stories of people being provided with inaccurate information while they were signing off (i.e. Not being told that Caesar's owns the Rio) and getting busted on a trip to Las Vegas. I was curious to see if people thought a)Such rules are fair and if B)These individuals would stand a snowballs chance of filing a lawsuit against the state.

Perhaps these programs help people with a problem. Certainly there is no excuse for providing inaccurate information.

Many casinos offer problem gamblers a voluntary ban program, but that makes all entry onto the property a trespass: restaurants, hotel rooms, parking structure as well as the actual casino area. It also prevents you from responding to any mailed or advertised offers of any sort, such as wine tastings. I imagine some people avail themselves of such programs while less than fully sober and while perhaps being overly emotional about a loss. Sobering up later means its too late to change your mind.

Now if you have been banned by the casino for some reason based on your behavior ... many places tend to enforce such trespass bans in an arbitrary manner.

In Arizona, the options are 1, 5, and 10 years for self-exclusion and since there is a Harrah's property in Arizona, if you choose to exclude yourself, you will be excluded from all Harrah's properties. With that said, why would they file a lawsuit? What would they expect to gain? If you are caught playing where you shouldn't be, you aren't hauled off to jail and fined, they simply ask you to leave. Now, if said person hit a taxable jackpot - the casino will not pay you because you are a banned player, then I suppose someone could throw a fit but even then they've got no legs to stand on.

The forms that get filled out are very specific and it's not anyone else's responsibility to hold the patron's hand as they sign it. Additionally, the casino isn't going to let you fill out that paperwork if you're drunk.

A side note - as someone who knows about this situation - when banning yourself in Arizona, Harrah's corporation sends out a certified letter notifiying you that you are not allowed to play in any of their casinos worldwide.

Quote: iambabyd

With that said, why would they file a lawsuit? What would they expect to gain?

As I understand it, it is the casino's responsibility to eject gamblers that are self-banned, and that there are consequences if they fail to do that.

What they have to gain by suing a self-banned player found on the property is, among other things, to set an example to others that are self-banned, and may be considering going anyway. Another reason is to show that they are doing everything they can to enforce it. That can come in handy in a different lawsuit later on.

From how I understand the case law on people who have filed lawsuits against the casinos, there is no affirmative duty for the casino to keep you out once you self-exclude. However, if they know you are there and recognize you (face, player's card, etc.), they have a duty to kick you out. If you are sneaking in trying to get your gamble on, and they don't know about it, they can't be held liable for failing to exclude you.

That's the way I understand it as well, Teddy. It's the same issue with Title 31. Casinos are to make their best effort to enforce but the fact is some things fall through the cracks. If they were to allow a player to continue knowingly after he/she was banned, then they could get a hefty fine. I know in AZ one way people get caught is by hitting a taxable jackpot, because they must then show ID. As an aside, that jackpot then gets donated to charity :)