Bill blocks self-exclusion marketing

Summary#

HB 2874 would amend Pennsylvania’s Title 4, which governs amusements and gaming; it does not create a new Act. Its stated aim is to restrict marketing and gaming-related benefits for people on self-exclusion lists. It is an introduced bill, not law; if enacted, it would take effect in 60 days.

  • Licensed gaming entities and gaming employees would have to stop sending self-excluded people direct marketing that offers promotions or other inducements, and gaming entities would have to keep marketing lists updated.
  • While someone is on a self-exclusion list, gaming entities could not let that person redeem gaming points or similar offers, receive listed benefits such as check-cashing privileges, use cashless wagering, or obtain credit. For people on a voluntary self-exclusion list, entities also could not accept deposits or wagers, pay gaming-derived winnings, or allow withdrawals or transfers from interactive gaming accounts, except under a cited regulatory provision.
  • Gaming entities would have to remove self-excluded people’s contact details from marketing lists immediately and update their internal tracking systems at least every 48 hours.
  • A gaming entity could share voluntary self-exclusion information with affiliates for responsible-gaming administration. It would have to include self-excluded people’s names and contact information on a no-marketing list shared with marketing contractors and other agents.
  • Violations of the new prohibitions could bring criminal penalties: a first violation is a first-degree misdemeanor; a second or later violation is a second-degree felony. The bill also sets fines, described below.

What it means for you#

  • People on self-exclusion lists: Gaming entities would have to stop direct offers and deny the listed benefits. People on voluntary lists could not make deposits or wagers or withdraw or transfer interactive-account money, except under the cited regulatory provision. The bill does not state a new penalty for the self-excluded person.
  • Licensed gaming entities and employees: They would have new marketing, list-updating, and gaming-related restrictions. The bill does not create a process for people to apply for self-exclusion or appeal a decision.
  • Marketing contractors and other agents: They would receive a no-marketing list that includes names and contact information, so they can avoid sending covered offers on behalf of a gaming entity.
  • General public: The bill does not create a general ban on gaming or change the rules for people who are not on a self-exclusion list.

Money#

The bill gives no estimate of public or private implementation costs.

  • Gaming entities would have to maintain and update lists and internal systems, but the bill gives no staffing or technology cost.
  • For a first violation, the fine is up to $150,000 for an individual; $300,000 to $600,000 for a licensed gaming entity or interactive gaming operator; and $150,000 to $300,000 for a licensed manufacturer or supplier.
  • For a second or later violation, the fine is up to $300,000 for an individual; $600,000 to $1.2 million for a licensed gaming entity; and $300,000 to $600,000 for a licensed manufacturer or supplier. The repeat-violation list does not name an interactive gaming operator separately.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied material does not include the current version of Title 4, so I could not verify which protections, duties, or penalties already exist.
  • The bill does not define “self-excluded,” “voluntary self-exclusion,” or the covered gaming-related offers and benefits.
  • It does not explain how self-exclusion lists are created, corrected, or removed, or what happens if a person’s details are mistakenly retained on a list.
  • The exception for interactive-account withdrawals or transfers refers to another provision whose text was not supplied, so the exception’s scope is unclear.
  • The bill changes the existing liability wording to make it subject to the new subsections, but does not explain how a breach affects liability. It also does not name interactive gaming operators in the repeat-violation fine category.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to reduce direct promotional contact with people who have chosen self-exclusion.
  • Requiring updates at least every 48 hours and removal of contact details could make marketing restrictions more consistent across lists and systems.
  • Blocking gaming-related benefits, deposits, and wagers while a person is on a voluntary list could support the purpose of self-exclusion.
  • Sharing information with affiliates and marketing agents could help extend the no-marketing rules beyond a single facility.

Case against#

  • Gaming entities would have to meet strict updating and marketing duties, but the bill does not explain how errors or delays would be handled.
  • The required sharing of names and contact information with marketing agents raises questions about how that information would be protected; the bill does not set out safeguards.
  • The bill creates serious criminal penalties and fines without describing how violations would be investigated or how responsibility would be assigned when marketing involves contractors.
  • The bill does not explain how its new requirements fit with existing self-exclusion rules or the existing liability protection it makes subject to the new provisions.