Continuing a trend toward more detailed and comprehensive self-exclusion regulations, the Mississippi Gaming Commission (MGC) recently adopted regulations creating a statewide self-exclusion system administered and maintained by the commission itself. Previously in Mississippi, individual casinos (or casino companies) administered and maintained their own self-exclusion lists and associated procedures.
Under the new regulations, any person may request self-exclusion from Mississippi casinos by applying in person at a Commission office. The minimum length of the self-exclusion is five years.
The applicant must execute a waiver and release that, among other things, holds casinos and their agents harmless for all claims “which may arise out of or by reason of any act or omission relating to the request for self-exclusion or maintenance or enforcement of the self-exclusion list.” The applicant must also agree to forfeit any winnings from any unauthorized visits to a gaming facility during the exclusion period.
Under the new regulations, Mississippi casinos may, at their option, share the state's self-exclusion list with affiliated casinos in other jurisdictions, while the MGC may exchange self-exclusion lists with both the Louisiana Gaming Control Board and the Choctaw Gaming Commission.
The new regulations also expand and clarify casino responsibilities in the self-exclusion process. Casinos must establish approved procedures and systems to ensure that self-excluded persons are, in fact, excluded from their premises. Specific requirements include the following:
A casino must donate to charity any amounts received from a self-evicted patron who gambles on its premises.
The regulations attempt to limit any potential liability of casinos that inadvertently permit a self-excluded patron to gamble. Despite Mississippi's reputation as a plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction in other liability contexts, the new regulations should discourage compulsive gambling plaintiffs. A key provision states that the rules “are solely regulatory in nature and neither create a minimum standard of care toward the public nor establish a private cause of action for non-compliance” and should not be construed “to impose a duty upon employees of casinos to identify problem gamblers nor to impose any liability for failure to do so.” Both provisions—combined with the mandatory waiver and release of liability signed by the self-excluded patron—should deter claims against casinos from self-excluded patrons who still manage to gamble on casino premises.