$ £

Why online gamblers would be better protected by regulation

It's an all-too-common occurrence in online gambling - players hitting the message boards to complain about no or slow payments by online casinos, and the frustration and anger that this inevitably triggers.

All too often the licensing jurisdiction of the defaulting casino is more interested in taking the licensing fee from the operator than helping players with a problem, although there are notable exceptions to this generalisation.

This week news surfaced of how a regulator should be handling legitimate player complaints, and although it concerned a land gambling dispute it serves to illustrate why U.S. online gamblers would be better protected by regulation than by prohibition.

Case NGC 09-08 was brought before the Nevada Gaming Commission on April 6 this year by the State Gaming Control Board, and accused the Las Vegas casino Fred's Tavern 2 and its main shareholder, Kurt Schoen, of contravening various sections of regulatory laws relating to prompt payment of patrons and adherence with Gaming Commission requirements designed to protect the players and the reputation of the gambling state.

The action was rooted in a long-running slow-pay dispute involving a player's $300 which occurred early 2009. The player complained to the Gaming Control Board and Fred's Tavern was ordered to return his money within the 20 days stipulated by the regulations.

Long story short, it took three different approaches by the authorities between March and August 2009 to finally get the player paid despite "the check is in the mail" and other excuses. But paid the player was.

The casino found to its cost that clashing with the Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Commission is not a smart idea - it was fined $1,000.

View the indictment here: http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/complaint_0908.pdf

Source: InfoPowa News

Share this