The Nevada Legislature wrapped up its session in June. Some bills impacting the gaming industry went into effect Tuesday; others will go into force at a later date.
Senate Bill 459 came out of a Nevada Gaming Control Board workshop held in December, with the backing of the Nevada Resort Association. The goal was to make it easier for the public to access high-end gaming salons. There’s no longer a $500-minimum wager to play slots. Instead, casinos can set minimum wagers approved by the Gaming Control Board. The salons are no longer required to include table games.
Gaming-salon regulations have been in effect for 24 years and the intent is to make them more accessible to the public when not in private use as a way to attract more visitors and generate more revenue. That bill is in effect.
“We want to make salons more appealing for guests and operators,” said Virginia Valentine, CEO of the Nevada Resort Association. “One of the things that came out of that workshop was that a $500 minimum was pretty high, and that there wasn’t the same appetite for table games as slot machines. We feel like it’s going to expand the opportunities in salons and attract players who may be playing in private card rooms (and tribal casinos) in California. We think it will attract some new visitors and also enhance the experience for visitors who may want more security or more privacy.”
Currently, the financial criterion for admission to a gaming salon includes an up-front deposit of at least $300,000, a $300,000 line of credit, or a combination of the two totaling at least $300,000. The industry would like to see that price of entry reduced or eliminated.
Those limits are at the discretion of the Gaming Control Board and Gaming Commission, Valentine said. She expects a workshop to be held in the near future on the issue.
“Right now, it’s a pretty narrow audience for salons,” Valentine said. “You want to maintain that surveillance and security, but you also want to offer these salon experiences to high-value players and not necessarily people who are going to lose a half-million dollars.”
Senate Bill 256, which goes into effect Oct. 1, requires the disgorgement of profits from illegal gaming activities and increases penalties. The legislation was in response to prediction markets, sweepstakes operators, and other online companies functioning in the state without a gaming license. The money will go into the state’s general fund as part of court action.
Nevada has sent cease-and-desist letters to sweepstakes and prediction-market operators. State gaming regulators have been locked in a legal battle with financial exchange Kalshi, which offers contracts on sports and receives a fee. Nevada’s Kalshi cease-and-desist order has been halted by a federal judge.
“The bill was really targeted toward sweepstakes,” Valentine said. “A number of states across the country are outlawing sweepstakes, which are illegal gaming and unregulated. What the disgorgement does is add an extra disincentive to operating illegally here. If they have to forfeit all the profits to the state, that’s a bigger disincentive than fines. You see this around the country.”
Assembly Bill 58, which went into effect Tuesday, allows approval by the chair of the Gaming Control Board for games and gaming devices, streamlining the process. It enables new gaming devices to be on the floor as fast as 50 to 60 days in some circumstances. That includes traditional table games and gaming devices. Previously, the process required Commission approval.
Despite the change, the games still go through the same rigorous testing process, according to Sebastian Ross, a senior policy counsel for the Board.
Also effective Tuesday, Senate Bill 46 provides parameters for the Gaming Control Board to maintain jurisdiction and investigate and initiate hearings to impose discipline for those who were licensed and found suitable by the Board and Commission. The Board will be submitting regulations for the Commission to adopt, Ross said.
The new law allows fines of not more than $500,000 for each separate violation that is the subject of an initial complaint, and $1 million for each separate violation that is the subject of a subsequent complaint. Existing law established fines of not more than $100,000 for certain violations and not more than $250,000 for each separate violation.
“They raised the statutory-fine range for violations of the Nevada Gaming Control Act,” Ross said. “When it comes to the increase of the fine ranges, it’s going to be up to the Nevada Gaming Commission to determine what the amount is. One of the things we’ve seen in recent months is agreements that go above the fine threshold. The licensee will still have the ability to negotiate with the Board those settlements, but ultimately it will be for the Commission to approve.”
Senate Bill 203 provides legal immunity to the Nevada Gaming Commission and related entities for good-faith actions and clarifies that off-track pari-mutuel systems and operators don’t need to be physically present in Nevada under certain conditions.
“It eliminates the need for a track to enter into an agreement with a disseminator,” Ross said. “The track can go directly with a book now.”
