BetMGM's Comments (Part 4)
Regulation: Operators must offer certain self-imposed responsible gaming limitation features.
Comment: In lieu of spend limits, we recommend allowing patrons to set loss limits that specify the maximum amount of money that can be lost within a given timeframe.
Duration of self-imposed limits
Regulation: Self-imposed limits may not be made less restrictive within 90 days of setting those limits initially. (11 VAC 5-80-120(B)(3))
Comment: Once established by a patron and implemented by the sports betting operator, it should only be possible to reduce the severity of self-imposed limitations upon 24 hours’ notice. In our view, restricting players’ ability to use self-imposed limiting tools may negatively impact players’ willingness to use such features.
Exclusions set by third parties
Regulation: The proposed rules require a permit holder to have procedures for honoring requests by “third parties” to exclude or set limits on patrons. (11 VAC 5-80-120(G))
Comment: We are not aware of other jurisdictions that allow third parties to set limits or exclusions on behalf of an otherwise competent patron.
Recording patron interactions
Regulation: The proposed rules require a permit holder to maintain a database for recording interactions regarding gambling problems with players and a clear protocol for documenting and using the data to assist players. (11 VAC 5-80-120(I))
Comment: Maintaining a database for recording patron interactions would raise privacy-related concerns. We also recommend placing a limit on the time period during which any such recordings must be maintained under this provision.
Seizure of winnings
Regulation: Upon verification of a player’s self-excluded status, the sports betting permit holder is required to “seize the individual’s winnings or other things of value.” (11 VAC 5-60-60(B))
Comment: We recommend revising the regulation to require the permit holder to simply notify the Department of the player’s self-excluded status; once the status is verified, it should be the Department, as the governmental authority, that seizes the individual’s winnings.
Regulation: The Department must notify each permit holder of the certain information regarding a self-excluded person added to the self-exclusion list. (11 VAC 5-60-30(B))
Comment: The mailing address of the self-excluded person should also be included in the notification, if it is different from the person’s residential street address.
Regulation: A permit holder is required to ensure that self-excluded individuals do not receive targeted mailings, telemarketing promotions, player club materials, or other promotional materials relating to sports betting. (11 VAC 5-60-40(A)(5))
Comment: We suggest revising to “targeted mailings, telemarketing promotions, player club materials, or other targeted promotional materials relating to sports betting.”
Right to legal recourse
Regulation: A sports bettor has the right to recourse against a permit holder if “he or she believes” a transaction or “other interaction” has been mishandled. (Sports Betting Bill of Rights)
Comment: We suggest revising to “a sports bettor has the right to recourse against a sports betting permit holder if the Board determines that the permit holder has violated a law or regulation with respect to a sports wagering transaction.” We request further clarifying the types of “interactions” that could give rise to legal recourse under this provision.
Managing types of wagers
Regulation: An operator must state, with particularity, how it plans to manage each type of sports event it proposes to offer. (Sports Betting Bill of Rights)
Comment: We suggest revising to “how it plans to manage each type of sports wager it proposes to offer.”