Committee hears SB 203 to grant narrow civil-immunity to regulators and members of Nevada’s off-track pari-mutuel committee

Senate Bill 203, presented by Sen. Julie Pizina to the Senate Judiciary Committee, would provide civil-immunity from suit for the State of Nevada, the Nevada Gaming Commission, the Nevada Gaming Control Board, the off-track pari-mutuel wagering committee and specified personnel when they act in good faith and without malicious intent in carrying out laws related to pari-mutuel wagering.

Sponsor remarks and testimony from industry representatives described the proposal as narrow and administrative: Virginia Ballentine of the Nevada Resort Association said several association members serve as uncompensated volunteers on the off-track pari-mutuel wagering committee and the bill would protect those volunteers from the expense of defending meritless lawsuits. Mark Rubinstein, appearing for the Nevada Resort Association and the Nevada Pari-Mutuel Association, said the bill mirrors immunity language already used elsewhere in Nevada law (chapter 462 for charitable lotteries) and would shield committee members and regulators from civil suits related to negotiating fees and contracts that include Nevada race books in out‑of‑state pari‑mutuel pools.

Rubinstein outlined the committee’s history and purpose: created by the Legislature in 1991 to negotiate single rates for all Nevada race books with out‑of‑state tracks and a systems operator (the “Nevada hub”), the committee was later reduced to an 11‑member panel in the late 1990s and expanded to 11 members in 2005 to create a manageable cross-section of books large and small. He said the committee enables smaller Nevada race books to obtain the same rates as larger competitors and protects books from antitrust exposure by operating as an arm of state regulation.

Questions from senators focused on the rationale and scope of immunity, transparency and precedent. Committee members asked whether the bill affects other gaming activity (it does not; sponsors said immunity is narrowly limited to off‑track pari‑mutuel wagering), what protections volunteers currently have (none similar to corporate indemnification), and whether immunity language mirrors other statutory immunity in Nevada. Rubinstein said committee minutes and actions are overseen by the Nevada Gaming Commission, though many gaming records are generally treated as confidential under state law.

Industry supporters including Caesars Entertainment, MGM Resorts International and Boyd Gaming told the committee they support SB 203. Proponents said the immunity is targeted at volunteer committee members and state regulators who, without it, face the potential cost of defending threatened antitrust litigation over negotiations with large out‑of‑state tracks.

No opposition testimony was recorded in the transcript. The committee closed the SB 203 hearing with no recorded vote; sponsors and industry representatives said the measure is narrow and modeled on existing statutory language that provides similar immunity for charitable lotteries.