The U.S. casino industry is a heavily regulated enterprise, which is made even more complicated by tribal gaming and the rules and protocols which are specific to it.
Guidance revolving around regulation and compliance for digital payments, cashless payments, and mobile gaming as they apply to tribes is a specialty of Jennifer Carleton, the Chief Legal Officer for Sightline Payments.
Carleton, a subject matter expert on Indian gaming law, has proven to be a valuable resource for expertise with Sightline’s suite of mobile solutions, including digital payments, not only as they apply to tribal gaming but also commercial casinos.
Her considerable experience in casino operations also gives Carleton insight into other topics impacting digital payments solutions, including the importance of ID verification and responsible gaming.
“The considerations for tribes in regard to cashless and digital payments are not the same as traditional interactive gaming and sports betting companies,” Carleton said. “The analysis for a non-tribal casino company and how they approach payments is going to be very different from how a tribe would approach digital gaming payments.”
One of the questions that is frequently asked is if tribes should rely on the GLI standard series for digital gaming from a technology perspective.
“We have worked with GLI on the development of their standards,” Carleton acknowledged. “They are definitely a great reference point. But they are not written for tribal gaming. When we have taken cashless technology through GLI, they test and review the tech and ultimately issue a letter for each state where the product is deployed.
“If we are deploying on Indian lands, GLI would also need to do the analysis for that tribe and that particular tribe’s regulations, which would include the compact provisions and what the tribe’s gaming ordinance provides, among other things. GLI is a great starting point for standards but they really are not written like the National Indian Gaming Commission’s minimum internal control standards or a tribe’s ICS.”
Having knowledge of how money moves digitally and who the actors in that space are, as well as a familiarity with the federal laws that overlay the process, is essential to understanding cash flow, particularly as it applies to tribal gaming.
Carleton stresses the importance of ID verification versus anonymity as a component of the registration process to engage in cashless gaming.
“It is primarily for patron safety,” she said. “We all know a lot of information about people is out there in cyberspace. Sometimes this includes personal information that the patron doesn’t want to be public, like their credit card numbers. We have worked with the FBI and with state regulators who have told us there is a lot of fraud that is occurring with sports betting and digital payments solutions.
“Of course, this fraud is not specific to gaming. It happens in all industries. However, gaming is a prime target for fraud, especially with the advent of sports betting. The speed with which many operators entered the market can sometimes lead to vulnerability. Having a system where you have to self-identify and have an account in order to participate limits the ability of someone to commit fraud using stolen personal information.”
ID verification can also assist with responsible gaming initiatives. Carleton notes that people have the ability to track their finances with banking apps and credit use reports and that there is no reason why gaming spend should be any different.
She reasons that if an individual has the ability to track their gaming expenditures in the same way with tools enabled to access the information in real time, ID verification ensures this resource. Anonymity paves the way to make it considerably more difficult to self-identify with a problem or even know if they have one.
“Most states have taken the approach that the customer should be able to activate self-imposed limits,” she explained. “The states actually build this right into their statutes and regulations when they authorize some form of digital wagering, including limiting the amount a person can wager in a day.”
Responsible gaming measures continue to be a priority in any new or expanded state gaming regulations. Carleton recalled some of the more interesting approaches state gaming regulators have taken to assist players with responsible gaming tools, including one state which proposed that a person couldn’t fund a wagering account with a joint bank account.
The proposal seemed logical, that one person on an account should not have the ability to gamble if that account was shared. Sightline participated in the notice and comment period for this particular legislation, explaining that a gaming operator cannot actually identify whether a bank account is jointly held.
Circling back to mobile wagering, Carleton confirmed that the tribes are doing it and have done it successfully.
“The first tribe to successfully introduce mobile wagering border to border was Agua Caliente,” she said. “They worked directly with the NIGC to develop alternate standards for minimum internal controls to account for mobile wagering on their lands.
“The approach for Agua Caliente was specific to its lands. Now they have adopted mobile wagering internal controls that apply to any patron geolocated on the tribe’s lands. Individuals located on the tribe’s reservation can sign up for their app and they then can participate in the types of wagering that have been authorized under the tribe’s gaming ordinance approved by the NIGC.
“Since Agua Caliente, other tribes have gone through the process with the NIGC by negotiating and adopting alternate internal control standards and regulations for mobile wagering, including the Flandreau Santee Sioux, the Chickasaw Nation, Muscogee Creek, and Choctaw.
“The NIGC has enhanced its alternate regulations process with each tribe that seeks to offer Class II mobile gaming on its lands. This process serves as a model for innovative collaboration between the NIGC and gaming tribes.”
