Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Self Exclusion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Casino Control Commission denies early removal from self‑exclusion list after in‑person testimony
Summary
An appellant identified by initials (MW) testified in person that he did not intentionally complete New Jersey's online self‑exclusion process; the Division presented time‑stamped evidence and deposit/loss figures and the commission denied early removal.
The New Jersey Casino Control Commission on March 31, 2025 denied an appellant's request for early removal from the state's self‑exclusion list after an in‑person hearing and presentation of documentary evidence by the Division of Gaming Enforcement.
The appellant, identified in the transcript by his initials 'MW,' testified that he never entered PointsBet's responsible‑gaming portal intentionally and disputed the division's account that he completed the self‑exclusion process. MW described contacting PointsBet by live chat and email in September 2023, stated his typical wagers were small and said he lost only about $121 in 2023. He repeatedly denied intentional self‑exclusion and offered to take a lie‑detector test to support his claim.
Division counsel told the commission that PointsBet provided records showing the appellant completed the detailed self‑exclusion process and entered a verification code sent to his phone at 03:16 p.m. The division also reported aggregate account activity for the appellant: deposits of $14,853 and total losses of $7,122.08 between September 2020 and September 2023. Division counsel said the processes for setting deposit limits and completing a self‑exclusion are separate and that the record confirmed the appellant followed the self‑exclusion steps.
Commissioners moved to adopt the hearing examiner's February 19, 2025 initial decision finding the appellant did not demonstrate improper placement on the self‑exclusion list; the commission's motion to deny early removal carried by recorded voice. Chair and commissioners thanked the appellant for attending and noted the decision does not imply criminal conduct but enforces the safeguards of the self‑exclusion process.
Next steps: the appellant remains on the self‑exclusion list until his listed expiration date (noted in the transcript as September 19, 2028). The Division and commission records will reflect the hearing examiner's initial decision and the commission's adoption of that decision.
