Dealing with problem gamblers

A man walks into a casino and spends $5 million at a slot machine.

He comes back and spends another $5 million, and then another and another and another.

Is he a compulsive gambler or a rich guy having fun?

If he is a problem gambler, does the casino have a responsibility to protect him from his compulsive behavior?

That's the question at the heart of high roller Terry Watanabe's lawsuit against Harrah's Entertainment and two of its casinos: Caesars Palace and the Rio.

The lawsuit filed by the Omaha philanthropist could have far-ranging consequences for the casino industry in an age when people addicted to smoking, for example, have successfully sued tobacco companies.

Watanabe, accused of stiffing the Rio and Caesars Palace for millions of dollars, may or may not have a case.

But the question of whether casinos have a responsibility to intervene on behalf of compulsive gamblers may be ripe for a legal challenge, said William Thompson, a University of Nevada-Las Vegas professor and gambling expert.

Thompson said the industry has “probably been holding its breath'' waiting for a case “where the compulsive gambler has the evidence and it shows the casino has exploited someone with a disease.”

Watanabe wagered nearly $357 million at Harrah's casinos in 2007. He is not the first person to allege that a casino exploited his gambling addiction.

But in the past, judges and juries have generally rejected such arguments, holding that the gambler is responsible for his or her losses, Thompson said.

Watanabe, former owner of Oriental Trading Co., says he lived for six months at Caesars in an intoxicated state, gambling away $112 million in 2007.

At the end of his spree, he allegedly left without paying off $14.75 million in markers.

Watanabe has been charged with two counts of theft and two counts of issuing bad checks in Clark County in Nevada. He faces jail time if convicted.

He fired back, filing the civil lawsuit against Harrah's Entertainment, Caesars Palace and the Rio. Watanabe says the casinos exploited his alcohol and gambling problems by keeping the vodka flowing and upping his credit limit.

Harrah's Entertainment denies all allegations, saying the lawsuit is an attempt to get the company to release Watanabe from his debts and to avoid jail time. The company says he should take responsibility for his high-rolling lifestyle.

“All of his statements, and his attorney's statements, needs to be seen in that light,” said Jan Jones, senior vice president of corporate communications and government relations.

Pierce O'Donnell, Watanabe's lawyer, said the case against Watanabe stems from a business dispute. O'Donnell said the casinos reneged on a deal that Watanabe had negotiated.

It involved perks and an incentive program that would give Watanabe “reward credits” for specific amounts wagered. He would then receive cash for each credit he earned.

“Mr. Watanabe is innocent, and Harrah's owes him money,'' said O'Donnell, a widely known Los Angeles trial attorney. “We look forward to our day in court when we establish his innocence and Harrah's culpability.”

In Las Vegas, casinos are not supposed to allow a “visibly intoxicated” person to gamble. They're also not allowed to give free drinks to someone who is obviously drunk, according to rules adopted by the Nevada Gaming Control Board.

As for problem gamblers, the rules require that casinos “conspicuously” post signs with the phone number of a gambling addiction hot line.

Casinos also are required to adopt training procedures for employees to spot behavior that may be symptomatic of problem gamblers. They can then “assist” problem gamblers by directing them to addiction programs and information.

Gamblers also can ban themselves from the casinos. Once they have banned themselves, they may be found guilty of trespassing if they return, and they would forfeit all winnings.

But nowhere in the regulations are casinos required to intervene and stop a gambler from placing bets.

O'Donnell said the fact that casinos are required to train employees to identify suspected problem gamblers implies they have a duty to intervene.

“It's certainly implied. Why would you have to have a training program for employees to recognize problem gambling?” he asked.

Jones said casinos do not have the capability to determine whether someone is a pathological gambler. She said casinos typically ban gamblers only if they ask to be banned or a credible third party, such as a family member, asks for a ban.

“There is some personal responsibility that I think goes along with behavior. And if he (Watanabe) felt he had a pathological gambling problem, all he had to do was ask for help,” Jones said.

She said casino workers can and do provide information about gambling addiction programs to gamblers who seem “unhappy,” but she said Watanabe never met that criteria.

A man who works with gambling addicts in Iowa agreed with Harrah's statement that casino workers are not qualified to identify and ban problem gamblers.

Mark Vander Linden, executive officer of the Iowa Gambling Treatment Program, said casinos can help gamblers who are clearly in “distress” by getting them off the casino floor and providing information about gambling addiction programs.

Vander Linden said it's not their job to intervene and ban a gambler.

In Iowa, casinos also are required to prominently display materials on problem gambling and to train employees to spot gamblers who may be in “distress.”

If a gambler appears to be in trouble, a casino supervisor may decide to make the patron aware of programs, Vander Linden said.

Gamblers in Iowa also can ban themselves from casinos. It is a lifetime ban, and they forfeit any winnings if they return.

Contact the writer:

444-1309, robynn.tysver@owh.com

« Metro/Region

Share