On behalf of Caesars Entertainment, I am submitting the following comments on the proposed regulations concerning self-exclusion from casino facilities (11 VAC 5-60).

We respectfully request that the Virginia Lottery consider imposing a standard on casino gaming establishments of not “knowingly permit(ting)” or “willfully permit(ting)” a self-excluded individual from entering onto the gaming floor of a casino, rather than a duty that casino gaming establishments have procedures designed to “prevent” a self-excluded individual from entering onto the gaming floor.

The relevant language is in 11VAC5-60-40 as follows:

Duties of sports betting permit holder and casino gaming establishment

A. A sports Sports betting permit holder holders and casino gaming establishments shall establish procedures that are designed, to the greatest extent practicable, to:

1. Prevent an individual on the self-exclusion list from opening a new sports betting or casino gaming player's account and from entering onto the gaming floor of a casino;

We recognize that 11VAC5-90-100 also includes similar language that we believe is contradictory (it establishes two different duties), and which would require amendment along with 11VAC5-60-40 in order for a comprehensive self-exclusion solution to be realized:

A facility operator may not:

a. Permit an individual on the voluntary exclusion list to:

(1) Enter the facility; or

(2) Play a casino game;

b. Knowingly fail to exclude from the premises an individual on the voluntary list; or

c. Disclose information about individuals on the voluntary exclusion list beyond the disclosures that are authorized by subdivision 2 of this subsection.

We would propose amending 11VAC5-90-100 as follows:

A facility operator may not:

a. Permit an individual on the voluntary exclusion list to:

(1) Enter the facility; or

(2) Play a casino game;

a.b. Knowingly fail to exclude from the premises an individual on the voluntary exclusion list; or

b. c. Disclose information about individuals on the voluntary exclusion list beyond the disclosures that are authorized by subdivision 2 of this subsection.

We understand that 11VAC5-90-100 is not under review at this time, and ask for your consideration of this suggestion when appropriate.

The overwhelming majority of states with commercial casinos do not establish a duty for operators to prevent access by self-excluded individuals to gaming properties. On the other hand, states often have

adopted a “knowingly fail” or “willfully fail” standard, which would be consistent with the revised 11VAC5-90-100 language above. Some examples:

Illinois: No licensee shall knowingly allow any person placed on the Self-Exclusion List pursuant to Section 3000.750 to enter the area within the admission turnstiles of, or engage in gambling at, the riverboat gaming operation.

Louisiana: Provide procedures designed to prevent employees from willfully permitting a person identified on a self-exclusion list from engaging in gaming activities at the licensed establishment or facility.

Massachusetts: The commission may revoke, limit, condition, suspend or fine a gaming establishment if the establishment knowingly or recklessly fails to exclude or eject from its premises any person placed on the list of self-excluded persons.

Even Maryland, which includes “may not permit to enter” language in its regulations on self-exclusion, only establishes sanctions for “knowingly” failing:

Maryland: (3) A video lottery operation licensee may not permit an individual on the voluntary exclusion list to enter into the video lottery facility or to play a video lottery terminal. (4) The Commission may impose sanctions on a licensee in accordance with this subtitle if the licensee knowingly fails to exclude from the premises of the licensee an individual on the voluntary exclusion list.

Self-exclusion should primarily be viewed as a tool that problem gamblers can use to help acknowledge and take personal responsibility for their gambling problems. If the responsibility to prevent a breach of a self-exclusion agreement is taken away from the self-excluded patron, then the program may lose its effectiveness.

Advocating a personal responsibility approach does not equate to not having processes in place to assist patrons with adhering to self-exclusion agreements. Casino operators must make reasonable efforts to detect self-excluded individuals at gaming properties. To that end, Caesars utilizes many tools to deter prohibited transactions with restricted or excluded patrons, Specifically, Caesars uses technology tools to automatically prohibit access to specific casino services through our RG2 IT application and Casino Management System, such as accessing casino credit; requesting a complementary; payment of jackpots; check-cashing; and checking into a hotel. Further, Caesars RG Identification at Slots technology identifies a self-excluded patron when they insert a player loyalty card into a slot machine. This system automatically alerts surveillance and security of the excluded patron’s location on the gaming floor so that they may be removed. We believe that a suite of these technological tools, combined with security and surveillance training and procedures, can assist self-excluded individuals and meet the recommended “knowingly” or “willfully” standards.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Dean Hestermann

VP, Issues Management and Strategic Communications

Caesars Entertainment, Inc. dhestermann@caesars.com