Nevada gaming regulators are supportive of allowing gamblers to use their wagering accounts to make purchases at restaurants, retail outlets, and other establishments at casino-resorts. However, currently, wagering accounts that hold patron funds can be used only for gambling.
The Nevada Gaming Control Board held a workshop Wednesday and its three members were receptive to the idea, but stopped short of allowing those accounts to be used off the casino property. It will be brought back to the Board for further discussion at a future meeting.
Senior Deputy Attorney General John Michela said the proposal before the Board is for wagering accounts to be used for retail purchases at a licensee or an affiliate of the licensee. A request has been made to use wagering accounts to fund debit purchases in partnership with a bank, the same way a debit account funds purchases.
Michela wrote an amendment draft to confine the activities to the casino-resort. If the Board wanted to allow purchases off site, he suggested more study on its state and federal legality.
Michela said besides retail and food purchases, there’s the option to allow purchases of services on the property like a spa, admission to nightclubs and pools, and other activities.
Board member Brittnie Watkins asked about any unintended consequences for broadening the purchases, but Michela said he didn’t see any problems with expanding the list.
Historically, horse-race wagering accounts were used for retail purchases in conjunction with activities related to horse-racing goods, Michela said. He noted that the change would apply only to non-restricted licensees – casinos – because restricted establishments can’t have wagering accounts. “It won’t affect them at all because restricted locations aren’t authorized to set up wagering accounts for their patrons.”
Board member George Assad wondered if the set-up would create any issues for banks. Michela responded that he could see issues if the purchases were broadened for use outside of casinos, but more discussion would be needed.
There hasn’t been any feedback from the Nevada Resort Association, Michela said.
Jim Barbee, chief of the technology division at the Gaming Control Board, said they’ve been approached by several industry players, including manufacturers, who requested expanded use of wagering accounts beyond gaming activities, such as “spas and buffets that still exist or to pay for the hotel room.”
Barbee said it’s also been brought up that a patron might want to go to a Las Vegas mall, but the proposal limited it to on-property only. That’s “low-hanging fruit”; they can verify accountability and ensure the wagering account can reconcile against any transaction outside of the gaming space and “not have to explore the impact on where the banks fit in. I will say that’s the next step. Wagering accounts have been around for 20-plus years now. It’s not just sports and horses, but you’ve been able to do wagering accounts in the slot area (for about 20 years).”
Patrons can currently fund wagering accounts using a prepaid card, similar to a debit card, which allows for a variety of uses. In recent years, debit cards could be used to purchase chips at a table game or slot machines.
In justifying the action, Barbee cited the use of debit cards to purchase chips and for use at slot machines, which mitigates the need for a wagering account.
Jennifer Carleton, chief legal officer for Sightline Payments, said her company supports the proposal, with the caveat that this is a first step.
“The operators are interested in implementing such a change, because significant fees are involved in the movement of money,” Carleton said. “If you move money in or out of a wagering account, there’s a fee involved. If there’s an ability to utilize a wagering account directly for funding to obviate some of those fees, that’s going to be a significant saving for the operator. As long as the same safeguards are in place with regard to anti-money laundering that you have with a traditional bank account, it makes sense for an operator to implement that type of a system.”
Carleton questioned the way the proposal is written and whether it includes third parties on the casino grounds.
Michela agreed that the way the amendment is written could eliminate third-party relationships on the property and proposed changing the wording to make it clear that it allows for expanded use, such as leased spaces.
Carleton also worries that it wouldn’t allow online purchases with the casinos.
Michela would support that expansion. Something bought in a casino gift shop, for example, could be bought on the gift shop’s online portal.
Maner Puyawan, chief innovation officer for Koin Payments, said his company backed the proposal, calling it “innovative.” He too called it step one in its use, with the ability to expand it in the future.
“I hope this conservation evolves into, what if we use it for other activities not within the wall of the licensees?” Barbee said. “If I have a wagering account with Acme Casino and want to go to Morton’s steakhouse and Morton and Acme have an agreement, or maybe they don’t, can I use it at that point? It’s sort of merging what we’re seeing with prepaid cards and what we’re seeing with wagering accounts.”
