I see a couple of problems.
Problem 1 is the casino now has another method for kicking out players. They could kick out players who cut into their profits instead of problem gambloers.
Problem 2 is that the casino has no reason to kick out these problem players. If a player is put on the list, either by the casino or by himself, and then plays in the casino and loses money, he loses money. If he plays and wins money, the casino says you can't keep it and the player loses money. So, you are asking the casino to enforce a policy that cuts into its profits.
There was an article in the Detroit News where a player on the excluded player list continued to play at the casino in question. The casinos would argue that it's difficult to catch every person on the list. This person, however, cashed personal checks and hit several jackpots requiring W2 forms. Sounds like the casino wasn't too interested in keeping this person out of the casino.
The idea of the law is good. However, if the casino can confiscate a jackpot by a barred player, they should be held accountable for that person playing there. Otherwise, it's a license to take away cash from problem gamblers.
ยทยทยท
****************************************************************************************
Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.
****************************************************************************************