You hear a lot about how online casinos are dangerous for irresponsible gamblers. We all know that gambling is entertainment. Yes, people win a lot of money playing Blackjack, Craps, Roulette, and Slots online at places like Slots of Vegas, but we encourage those who hop online or play live to do so for fun.
Sure, the chances of winning exist. And payout rates tend to be pretty high. But you should play casino games expecting to lose. That way, you won’t lose your shirt and will play with only what you can afford.
But not everyone listens. And we’re not even talking about online games. A woman recently sued the British Columbia Lottery Corporation and two separate casinos because they failed to stop her from betting away a ridiculous amount of money.
What kind of coin are we talking about? Not a few hundred. Not even a few thousand. Not even a few dozen thousand. We’re talking about $330,000. That’s Canadian dollars, but it happened in 2010 and the US dollar exchange was about 1:1. So, we’re talking about a big chunk of change.
Should the casinos have stopped her from gambling? The woman in question seemed to have somewhat of a case. That’s because she included herself on the Do Not Admit list.
That’s essentially a self-exclusion list. If you put yourself on the list, casinos are supposed to stop you from entering the premises and gambling away your life fortune. Ideally, security should stop you from entering. And any employee on the floor should stop you from playing. But clearly, stop meant go right ahead. It didn’t work so well.
The case ended up going to the BC Supreme Court and today it was revealed that the BC woman in question lost the case.
As an online casino, we believe that although people should be responsible for their actions, there are always ways to get help when they think they have lost control of their behavior, one example are the Self Exclusion Lists. However it is very important to remember when you have a self-exclusion program, you need to make sure it works properly.
Online self-exclusion programs work. Some are tied to IP addresses. Others are tied to credit cards. Even the most basic ones tend to be a lot more effective than relying on people to spot someone who may or may not be on a random list.
What are your thoughts on this particular case?