.svg)
A significant change to Pennsylvania’s self-exclusion rules proposed by state gaming regulators is causing alarm among problem gambling experts.
Currently, gamblers who put themselves on self-exclusion lists for one or five years must request to be removed from a central list that bars them from entering a casino, placing a sports bet or online casino game, or playing a video gaming terminal (VGT) at a truck stop.
Last month, however, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB) proposed a rule change so that self-exclusions would be automatically lifted after the period of the ban expires.
In its proposed rules published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the PGCB noted that requiring individuals to take affirmative removal action after their selected period has elapsed can result in individuals experiencing negative effects.
“Many individuals erroneously believe that once the time period selected for casino self-exclusion has passed, they are once again allowed to engage in gaming activities in this Commonwealth's retail casinos. This comes from either not reading the self-exclusion paperwork that they sign clearly enough, or simply forgetting after several years that they must request removal,” the board stated.
However, the PGCB wrote, that with these individuals remaining on the self-exclusion list, they are subject to trespass charges if caught in a licensed facility, and the confiscation of funds if they win while gaming.
“Movement to a unified automatic removal process will eliminate confusion, reduce potential trespass actions and eliminate many administrative proceedings within the board relating to requests for the return of confiscated funds,” according to the PGCB.
Josh Ercole, executive director of the Council on Compulsive Gambling of Pennsylvania, opposes the proposed changes.
“While self-exclusion is an incredibly valuable resource for individuals experiencing gambling-related issues, it is our opinion that offering automatic removals for those who select one-year or five-year terms could lead to potential problems for individuals in various stages of recovery,” Ercole said.
Ercole stressed that by requiring individuals to request removal after their term has been completed, they are allowed to remain on the program by taking no action.
“Should they decide they no longer wish to remain on the program, they can proceed with the removal process, but the decision is ultimately theirs. By following this process, individuals will be kept in a safe place until they wish to no longer remain in that position.”
“Automatic removal would take that decision away from them,” Ercole added.
The PGCB will accept public comments on the proposed rule change until Tuesday (November 26).
As of November 13, there were 8,146 total enrollments on the Pennsylvania regulator's iGaming self-exclusion list after 2,412 removals, and 24,002 on the casino list after 10,837 total removals. A total of 1,548 people are on the PGCB's self-exclusion list for fantasy sports after 371 removals, while 2,053 individuals are on the list for VGTs, after 627 removals.
The Self-Exclusion Program began in 2006 to permit individuals to ban themselves from entering and gambling at Pennsylvania casinos. The programs were expanded after the passage in 2017 of the Gaming Expansion Act, also known as Act 42, which regulated fantasy sports and iGaming, with online sports betting added prior to its launch in May 2019.
Both Ted Hartwell, executive director of the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling, and Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, have submitted letters in opposition to the proposed regulatory change.
“Automatic removal strips excluded gamblers of the opportunity to undergo a reinstatement process to ensure they actually want to resume play,” Whyte wrote in a letter submitted to the PGCB.
Whyte also expressed his concern that automatic removal also removed the ability to provide assistance throughout the process, including utilization of responsible gambling tools and information about local treatment and recovery resources in case an individual experiences gambling-related harm after reinstatement.
“Individuals who have chosen self-exclusion are often battling a serious addiction. Removing them from the list without their explicit request increases the likelihood of relapse, especially during moments of emotional or physical distress,” Hartwell wrote.
“Relapse can have devastating consequences, including financial ruin, relationship breakdown, and even suicide,” Harwell added. “This policy change increases the potential for such tragic outcomes.”
