Casino Control Commission grants early removal from Internet self-exclusion after hearing examiner credibility finding

The New Jersey Casino Control Commission on Nov. 27 adopted an initial decision finding that an appellant (identified in the record as PM) did not intentionally place herself on the Division of Gaming Enforcement's Internet self-exclusion list and granted her request for early removal before the term expiration.

Senior counsel Teresa Pimpinelli presented the hearing record and the Division's arguments that the Division relies on knowledge-based authentication (KBA) questions and strong customer-authentication details to confirm Internet self-exclusion enrollments. Deputy Attorney General Jocelyn Fedowitz told the commission that when patrons answer the randomly generated KBA questions correctly in a single attempt, the Division treats that as confirmation of identity.

Commissioner Famica asked detailed questions about how the KBA questions are generated and whether interview or play-history evidence could alter the Division's assessment. Pimpinelli said play records "could be another supplemental form of determining whether or not a person was the one who self excluded on the behalf," but obtaining play history would require requesting records from operators and was not the Division's primary authentication method.

After reviewing the record and posing questions during the public meeting, a commissioner moved to adopt the hearing examiner's credibility findings. The motion concluded that the hearing examiner provided "sufficient, competent, and credible evidence" to find PM's testimony credible and that there was insufficient evidence she placed herself on the self-exclusion list. The commission approved the motion on a roll-call vote, granting early removal prior to the originally imposed expiration date.

The commission's action preserves regulatory reliance on the Division's KBA and KYC procedures while showing that credibility findings in a contested hearing may outweigh technical confirmation when the record supports the applicant's testimony. The Division had argued that allowing removal based on the absence of physical characteristics or without corroborating evidence could create a precedent for appeals by other Internet self-excluded patrons.

The commission did not disclose the appellant's identity in public session and noted that the record remains subject to confidentiality and privacy requirements. The order and any follow-up procedures will be reflected in the commission's final minutes and docket.