"Not in the Cards," says NJ Appellate Court to Self-Professed Problem Gambler
A self-professed problem gambler who voluntarily placed himself on the New Jersey Casino Control Commission's lifetime self-exclusion list is not entitled to removal from that list on becoming aware that out-of-state casinos affiliated with New Jersey casinos would also exclude him from their gaming facilities, the Appellate Division ruled on March 20, 2008 in The Matter of the Petition of S.D. for Removal From the Voluntary Self-Exclusion List, A-3427-06T2.
In this particular case, on July 26, 2004 the gambler (S.D.) submitted a "self-exclusion questionnaire" for lifetime placement on New Jersey's self-exclusion list. In signing the questionnaire, S.D. acknowledged that he was a problem gambler; that he authorized the New Jersey casino and casino simulcasting facilities to exclude him from all gaming activities; that he read and understood the instructions appearing on the questionnaire; and affixed his initials to to a question explaining that by choosing a lifetime ban he could not request to be taken off the list.
Only a month later, on August 24, 2004, S.D. sent the division a letter requesting that his lifetime ban be rescinded or downgraded. According to S.D., he claimed he agreed to ban himself only from Atlantic City, which was near his home, so that he would force himself to restrict his gambling to Vegas trips. S.D. having received a letter from Ceasers, which maintains casinos in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, notifying him that his voluntary submission to New Jersey's resulted in his being banned in its Las Vegas casino, S.D. claimed that he never would have voluntarily banned himself if he knew the ban would extend to other gaming facilities in other parts of the United States.
Ultimately, S.D. filed a formal petition with the New Jersey Casino Control Commission seeking an order removing his lifetime ban from the SEL. According to his petition, S.D. argued that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his rights because the questionnaire did not inform him that putting himself on New Jersey's SEL would result in his being excluded from other affiliated casinos throughout the USA. The Commission denied S.D.'s petition for, among other reasons, that there was no regulation justifying removal of a person who voluntarily chooses a lifetime self-exclusion ban, or any regulation directing casinos in other states to allow a voluntary participant in a New Jersey SEL to gamble at their facilities.
Dissatisfied, S.D. appealed the Commission's denial of his petition to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, which has appellate jurisdiction from final orders of administrative agencies. Applying an "abuse of discretion standard", the Appellate Division found that the Commission's decision was supported by ample facts, law and public policy. Recognizing that there is no fundamental right to gamble, either by statute or by constitution, the Appellate Division concluded that S.D. voluntarily surrendered whatever right he had to participate in gaming activities in New Jersey when he placed himself on lifetime SEL. That S.D.'s decision to submit to New Jersey's SEL resulted in his banishment from casinos in other jurisdictions was a collateral consequence of his contract or agreement with the State of New Jersey, the Appellate Division reasoned.
What does this case mean for NJ gamblers? Think carefully before folding your hand.
In this particular case, on July 26, 2004 the gambler (S.D.) submitted a "self-exclusion questionnaire" for lifetime placement on New Jersey's self-exclusion list. In signing the questionnaire, S.D. acknowledged that he was a problem gambler; that he authorized the New Jersey casino and casino simulcasting facilities to exclude him from all gaming activities; that he read and understood the instructions appearing on the questionnaire; and affixed his initials to to a question explaining that by choosing a lifetime ban he could not request to be taken off the list.
Only a month later, on August 24, 2004, S.D. sent the division a letter requesting that his lifetime ban be rescinded or downgraded. According to S.D., he claimed he agreed to ban himself only from Atlantic City, which was near his home, so that he would force himself to restrict his gambling to Vegas trips. S.D. having received a letter from Ceasers, which maintains casinos in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, notifying him that his voluntary submission to New Jersey's resulted in his being banned in its Las Vegas casino, S.D. claimed that he never would have voluntarily banned himself if he knew the ban would extend to other gaming facilities in other parts of the United States.
Ultimately, S.D. filed a formal petition with the New Jersey Casino Control Commission seeking an order removing his lifetime ban from the SEL. According to his petition, S.D. argued that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his rights because the questionnaire did not inform him that putting himself on New Jersey's SEL would result in his being excluded from other affiliated casinos throughout the USA. The Commission denied S.D.'s petition for, among other reasons, that there was no regulation justifying removal of a person who voluntarily chooses a lifetime self-exclusion ban, or any regulation directing casinos in other states to allow a voluntary participant in a New Jersey SEL to gamble at their facilities.
Dissatisfied, S.D. appealed the Commission's denial of his petition to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, which has appellate jurisdiction from final orders of administrative agencies. Applying an "abuse of discretion standard", the Appellate Division found that the Commission's decision was supported by ample facts, law and public policy. Recognizing that there is no fundamental right to gamble, either by statute or by constitution, the Appellate Division concluded that S.D. voluntarily surrendered whatever right he had to participate in gaming activities in New Jersey when he placed himself on lifetime SEL. That S.D.'s decision to submit to New Jersey's SEL resulted in his banishment from casinos in other jurisdictions was a collateral consequence of his contract or agreement with the State of New Jersey, the Appellate Division reasoned.
Further, the appellate court remarked that the voluntary exclusion policies of the private parent companies of New Jersey casino licensees was not something within the purview or jurisdiction of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission. Hence, the appellate court held that the Commission had no obligation to inform S.D. of any collateral consequences of his New Jersey SEL.
What does this case mean for NJ gamblers? Think carefully before folding your hand.
Comments