Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Self Exclusion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Casino Control Commission denies appeal to remove self-excluded DraftKings user
Summary
The commission adopted a hearing examiner's initial decision and denied an appellant's request to be removed from New Jersey's five-year self-exclusion list, finding the Division of Gaming Enforcement's evidence that the enrollment was voluntary persuasive; the appellant argued the DraftKings interface led to an inadvertent enrollment.
The New Jersey Casino Control Commission on Sept. 3 adopted a hearing examiner's initial decision and denied an appellant's request to be removed from the state's five-year self-exclusion list, finding the Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) had shown the enrollment was voluntary.
The division, represented at the meeting by Deputy Attorney General Paige Kramer, told commissioners that after an investigation it "determined that the appellant had intentionally signed up for a 5 year self exclusion period" through the DraftKings app and that the platform requires multiple authentication and confirmation steps. Kramer told the commission the division's review relied on NJAC 13:69G-2.2 and the procedural record supporting denial.
The appellant, identified in the record only as "SP," told the commission he believed the enrollment resulted from distraction and a confusing app interface. "There was lack of informed consent due to interface design," SP said, adding that he was using the DraftKings platform late at night during a family celebration and that he was "clicking through screens" and did not intend to self-exclude. "I didn't ever ever ever intend to self exclude myself," SP said during his testimony.
Commissioners questioned both sides about the steps required by the DraftKings application and the presence or absence of verbal confirmation that would occur in an in-person self-exclusion. The division emphasized that the app process includes authentication codes and a final confirmation step and argued that allowing removal on these facts would undermine the program.
After hearing testimony and reviewing the hearing-examiner record, a commissioner moved to adopt the initial decision to deny the appellant's request to be removed from the self-exclusion list prior to the expiration date of Aug. 11, 2029. The motion was seconded and approved by roll call.
The commission cited the applicable regulatory provision (NJAC 13:69G-2.2) in adopting the decision. The record in the matter is confidential to the extent stated on the record and the appellant's identity is treated as confidential in the docket.
