PGCB Addresses Issues with Self-Exclusion Scheme

As it stands, the state of Pennsylvania has about 15,000 known or registered problem gamblers who have registered on the state’s voluntary self-exclusion program. The program has been designed with some rather foolproof rules that have so far proven to be quite effective. However, a few concerns have been raised with regard to unambiguity in two of the rules that have been spelled out for the program. The rules in question state that:

  • Individuals who choose the lifetime ban are unable to request removal from the self-exclusion list.
  • A self-excluded person … may not collect in any manner or in any proceeding any winnings or recover any losses arising as a result of any gaming activity for the entire period of time that the person is on the self-excluded list.

In a rather unexpected twist, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB) recently made a decision that would counter its own regulations as well as some recommendations from its staff members. This was after a hearing where they listened to some accounts from some gamblers who are currently in the self-exclusion program.

Changes to the Terms of Lifetime Ban

After hearing the stories from some of the members the board softened its stance on some of the very strict rules it has in place. The rules were pretty stringent in order to ensure that compulsive gamblers do not end up finding a leeway to gamble. However, there are some justifiable changes that are now under consideration.

For instance, for gamblers who opt to excluded from gambling for either one year or five years, they remain in the list and have to go through a formal process in order to be unlisted. For rather obvious reasons, the board did not give the same option to people who signed up for a lifetime ban. Thankfully, the gaming control board is now considering a regulatory change that will allow people who opted for the lifetime ban to opt out of the program after a decade. Once they have done that, they will be able to go back to accessing the legal gambling products available in the state.

Provided that they are able to prove that removal from the list will “not be detrimental to the individual’s physical or mental well-being and would not have a negative impact on gaming in the commonwealth” they will be able to opt out.

Getting More Help for the Problem Gamblers

Once on the self-exclusion list, the gamblers will be in violation of certain regulations in case they attempt to gamble. Now, instead of just penalizing them, the violator of the self-exclusion rules will be offered assistance. The state gaming regulator intends to direct them into clinical evaluation and treatment. A court-appointed clinician has been proposed for but there is still more that needs to be done to make it all work.

Francesco loves to approach the industry from a legal standpoint. With a knack for words and passion for detail, Francesco manages to help our staff in providing the most accurate coverage possible. He’ll often assist our colleagues and help them understand what readers are interested in and care for in reporting. He’s currently the head of our content and we trust Francesco to take our coverage to the next level.