Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gambling Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves substitute to expand gambling statute to cover certain video gaming devices
Summary
Senators approved a substitute to House Bill 258 that defines 'video gaming device' and extends gambling prohibitions to devices meeting enumerated criteria. Debate focused on whether the definition could unintentionally capture ordinary video games; supporters cited law-enforcement concerns.
SENATE — The Utah Senate approved the first substitute to House Bill 258, which amends the state's gambling statutes to cover devices meeting a multi-part definition of a "video gaming device." The substitute was placed on the third-reading calendar after floor debate and a recorded tally in which the clerk announced the substitute passed.
Sponsor remarks described the statutory elements the substitute would add: a video display and computerized mechanism for playing a game; play length "not substantially affected by the skill, knowledge, or dexterity of the player"; a meter that records money, tokens, games or credits; a play option permitting a player to risk varying amounts of money or credits during a single game without lengthening the play; and an operating mechanism that "requires inserting money, tokens, or other valuable consideration in order to function." The sponsor said these elements distinguish gambling machines from ordinary entertainment devices.
Several senators challenged whether the language might sweep in ordinary video games or pinball machines. Senator Wharton warned the bill could be read broadly: "I could take just about any video game that's out there now and have every one of these things here applied to it," raising concern about harassment of legitimate businesses. The sponsor and other supporters said committee review and the substitute's language were intended to address those concerns.
Senator Bueller defended the bill's origins, saying it was brought by law enforcement and that "they basically have told us there's a problem" and that the measure "is the way to solve it." Senator Petersen also supported the substitute, noting the Department of Public Safety had sought a rulemaking option before being told it lacked statutory authority.
The presiding officer called the question and the substitute was read for the third time; the clerk announced the tally and the substitute passed to the third-reading calendar. The presiding officer announced the substitute had 23 ayes, 3 nays, and 3 absences as it moved forward.
The Senate then continued with other business.
