localized date
Current Time
Problem gamblers would be able to immediately return to casinos after their self-imposed bans expire, in a change proposed by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board — a move some say would remove a barrier to relapse.
Now, bettors who ban themselves from casinos must request to be removed from a list that bars them from even going into one.
Bans for online gaming, video gaming terminals, and fantasy sports betting, known as “self-exclusion,” are automatically lifted after those bans expire. State officials say they want to make the rules the same for bans on casino gambling as well.
State Sen. Wayne Fontana said the revenue from the gaming industry should not be “at the expense of the people who are addicted.”
“It should be on the individual to say, ‘I want to be on that list, and I want to stay on that list until I tell you I don’t want to be on the list anymore,’” said Fontana, (D-Beechview).
Fontana introduced a bill earlier this year to ban gaming companies from directly advertising to individuals on the self-exclusion list.
The Gaming Control Board will accept public comment until Nov. 26, 30 days after the proposed change was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
Executive Director of the Council on Compulsive Gambling of PA Joshua Ercole said that the Council submitted a letter of opposition to the proposed changes.
“We don't feel that it's a decision that's in the best interest of folks who are either already enrolled in self-exclusion or will enroll in self-exclusion,” he said. “If we take steps to reduce some of the restrictions and make it easier for them to go back to the location or to the site that they were exhibiting some types of issues or experiencing issues, it's just kind of working in the opposite way that the program should be.”
If the proposed change is implemented, only those who sign up after the rules change will be affected — it will not apply to those already enrolled.
As of mid-October, there were about 23,700 enrollments in the self-exclusion program for casinos, out of 35,000 statewide for all forms of gambling.
Jody Bechtold, gambling addictions expert and CEO of The Better Institute, said automatic removal is dangerous.
She pointed to online gambling self-exclusions, which has automatic removal, as an example.
“I've seen it firsthand multiple times when it expires. For the online [gaming], people literally go gamble again. They lose a ton of money because they haven't gambled in a while, and then they feel more shame, more guilt,” she said
Instead, people should have to request that their privileges to gamble be restored, across all forms of gambling.
Bechtold often tells clients to sign up for one year of self-exclusion, evaluate at the end of a year and decide if they want to take themselves off the list.
However, automatic removal complicates that because people are immediately able to return to gambling without making the decision to take themselves off the list, she said.
“Self-exclusion is a very effective step to take,” she said. “They're afraid of getting arrested. They're afraid of getting in trouble, and it's enough for them to make a better decision. But for many people, we say self-exclusion in and of itself is not enough, so by changing this policy, they're literally making it even less effective.”
Those looking to self-exclude can choose between one year, five years, or a lifetime ban for casinos, online gambling, and video gaming terminals and manually enter a number of years for exclusion from fantasy sports betting.
People can extend their self-imposed ban as well, said Elizabeth Lanza, director of the Office of Compulsive and Problem Gambling at the Gaming Control Board.
"Self-exclusion is definitely something that can help and can help with that temptation to go to a casino or to go online, but it certainly is not treatment, and it will not help the underlying issues that cause the addiction,” Lanza said.
Self-exclusion is not a permanent solution to addiction, she said, but a gateway to treatment.
The proposed change is also a reaction to people entering casinos after their self-exclusion period is up without having removed themselves from the list, said Gaming Control Board communications director Doug Harbach.
Those individuals have their winnings confiscated and can be charged with trespassing.
When that money is confiscated, individuals may petition the Gaming Control Board to recover their money. That means staff must investigate, going through hours of surveillance video to determine what the individual can and cannot recover.
“This is taking a lot of staff time, and in some cases, for $100,” Harbach said.
But the proposed solution to the burden placed on the board is not a risk worth taking, Bechtold said. She added that gambling has one of the highest suicide rates of all addictions and that she prefers manual removal from the self-exclusion list.
“I would rather have that problem, than people that kill themselves because they were removed from the list,” she said. “I mean, you're literally talking about an administrative burden versus people's lives.”
Gambling revenue in the state reached a record high of about $5.6 billion in 2023, an almost 10% increase from 2022.
“As the state, we're partners, right, with the gaming industry. We get a piece of the action, but we're supposed to be responsible. We're supposed to make it responsible,” Fontana said.
While Bechtold agrees that self-exclusion is not a catch-all solution, she remains critical of automatic removal in general.
“If the state doesn't change this policy, it's really showing that it's not doing its job of protecting the consumer, that it's more focused on the availability and accessibility of gambling than helping to reduce any gambling-related harms,” she said.
.png)
