My response to the Gaming Board's ruling is this: BUNK.
It may be true that this case does not fall into the category of "gaming
dispute", empowering a Gaming Agent to make an investigatory ruling on the
spot.
But that doesn't mean the Board has no jurisdiction.
Generally, you're better off convincing a Gaming Enforcement agent that you
have a gaming dispute -- even if really technically isn't.
Any other type of dispute, and they will not make a ruling then and there.
You'll fill out a form telling your side, the agents will investigate, and
you'll probably not hear from them for six weeks, if ever. They do NOT
have to inform you of the outcome.
Nevada gaming law has an all-encompassing offense category called
"Unsuitable Method of Operation" (UMO, to Gaming agents).
A UMO is very broadly defined as anything that could bring disrepute to
"legal gaming or the great state of Nevada".
False advertising, deceptive promotions, misleading signage, failure to pay
cashback or other promised benefits all fall under UMO.
Even throwing a Nazi-themed party counts, as the Imperial Palace found out
years ago when it was fined over 2 million dollars for doing just that.
The problem for us is, a UMO action is strictly between the casino and the
Board. Players have no standing, and are not entitled to compensation even
if the casino is sanctioned. We're not even allowed to attend the hearing
nor be informed of the outcome.
A reasonable person might wonder how we are to trust a process so secretive
and exclusively between the fox and the henhouse, but that is a question for
another day. The silver lining here is that, although we don't get any of
the spoils, the threat of a UMO sanction does in theory provide some
incentive for casino personnel not to screw us at every turn. And although
we can't participate in the process afterward, we are able to make a
complaint that initiates it.
Knowing that a casino was sanctioned for UMO would of course be helpful in a
civil suit. This may be obtainable through subpoena.
TC
···
On 6/21/07, King Fish <vpkingfish@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/20/07, lv_nv_realtor <irdd@netzero.net <irdd%40netzero.net>> wrote:
> seems like a case for small claims court...providing the current
> limit of the court is close to her claim...
In NV, the small claims limit is $5000.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]