Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Self Exclusion Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Casino Control Commission rejects hearing examiner’s recommendation to remove patron from Internet self‑exclusion list
Summary
On a 2‑1 roll‑call vote the New Jersey Casino Control Commission rejected a hearing examiner’s initial decision that would have removed an appellant from the Internet self‑exclusion list, leaving the division’s 5‑year exclusion in place and prompting calls for clearer online enrollment warnings and regulatory fixes.
The New Jersey Casino Control Commission voted 2–1 on June 30 to reject a hearing examiner’s recommendation that a confidential appellant (referred to in the record as EG) be removed from the state’s Internet self‑exclusion list, leaving the division of gaming enforcement’s 5‑year exclusion in place.
The commission considered a contested‑case initial decision that would have removed EG from the list after March 7, 2026. Division counsel Gina DeAnontis told commissioners the division had consistently applied both an earlier one‑year enrollment and a later five‑year enrollment concurrently and that the division’s process complied with NJAC 13:69 regulations. “The division respectfully requests that the commission reject the initial decision,” DeAnontis said, arguing the division properly administered both terms and that operators need time to implement locks across roughly 29 operators.
A hearing examiner moved to adopt the examiner’s initial decision, arguing the record supported removal. The hearing examiner stated the appellant “testified credibly” that they intended to exclude from Internet gaming only and that the initial decision found that the appellant had not knowingly agreed to a broader exclusion.
Commissioner commentary focused on regulatory purpose and timing. One commissioner (who spoke at length) emphasized that the appellant admitted not reading site warnings and quoted the appellant’s statement in the record: “I should have read the fine print there. I mean, there’s no other way around it. It falls on me.” That commissioner said the regulatory framework permits casinos discretion to exclude patrons and cautioned against reducing that discretion.
After extended questioning about the division’s timeline for processing enrollments and operator implementation, the full commission first recorded a roll‑call split on adopting the examiner’s decision (recorded as Famica: No; Molineux: Yes; Chair: No). A subsequent motion to reject the initial decision was then made, seconded and approved on roll call (Famica: Yes; Vice Chair Molineux: No; Chair: Yes), effectively rejecting the hearing examiner’s recommendation to remove EG from the Internet self‑exclusion list.
Commissioners who supported rejecting the initial decision said the appellant voluntarily completed multiple online self‑exclusion enrollments and that the division’s method of running concurrent terms was consistent with the program’s protective intent. Commissioners who supported adopting the initial decision raised concerns about whether one‑click online enrollments and inconsistent operator practices provide sufficient notice to patrons that an Internet sign‑up could lead to brick‑and‑mortar exclusion.
Several commissioners suggested the division consider regulatory or user‑interface changes—such as clearer warnings or a pause prompt on apps—to reduce future confusion about the relationship between Internet self‑exclusion and brick‑and‑mortar exclusion. The commission said it will issue a written order explaining the reasons for its action.
The commission’s action leaves the division’s final decision intact for this appellant and signals further consideration of regulatory clarifications to harmonize Internet and land‑based self‑exclusion processes.
