How Does the Casino Self-Exclusion List Affect You?
In general, the phrase » Casino Self-Exclusion List » or « minimum casino spend » would refer to a set of rules or regulations enacted by independent organizations or individual casinos as a means of addressing the problem of high problem gaming. These voluntary agreements between casinos and gaming owners are aimed at minimizing the risks that are associated with online gaming. In the US, such voluntarily agreements are enforced by the US Department of Treasury’s Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Enforcement (OTC) division. The casino self exclusion list was first implemented in Australia in 1994. It is also enforced in various European Union member states as well as in New Zealand and is currently under negotiation in other member states.
Such voluntary agreements between online casinos and owners are often reached after being subjected to public list of casinos not on gamstop pressure and criticism from politicians, legal experts, media and other interested parties. When such regulations are introduced, they become a part of the law and cannot be changed unless voted into the constitution of a country. However, this does not mean that they cannot be modified or deleted. Today, most members of the World Wide Web are constantly exposed to high risk gambling table games such as roulette, blackjack, poker, baccarat and even online slots. This is further aggravated by the fact that most members do not have the time, patience and knowledge necessary to fully understand the gaming procedures and their legal implications.
Online casino games have been a cause of concern for several years now. In the past, online casinos have been operated with the assumption that there is no need for consumers to know and follow the gaming procedures because they were operated offshore or in other remote locations. The influx of large numbers of new players from different parts of the world has resulted in the growth of several online casino sites. Consequently, the impact of the US legislation banning online casinos from receiving US government funding and manipulating the online gaming industry to operate outside the jurisdiction of the United States is also a matter of grave concern. Since online casinos are required by law to obtain the services of licensed money lenders in order to provide credit and in some states the implementation of the provision of deposit casino funds is also being thwarted by online casinos that refuse to make payments to licensed money lenders.
The issue of free spins has also become a point of controversy. Free spins are offered by online casinos that aim to entice new players to join the online casino and thereby generate more revenue. Despite being offered free of charge, there is always a fee attached to the actual play session and this is a clear attempt by the online casino to extract fees from players who are lured to the free spins.
One can safely conclude that the new age online casino games have been affected by this UIGEA because it has resulted in a drastic decline in the number of licensed casinos in operation. This means that most online gambling sites are now only allowed to operate within the jurisdictions covered by the UIGEA and this means that there are no longer any offshore casinos left. This is obviously bad news for everyone concerned as the online gaming industry has always relied upon the revenue gained from these offshore casinos in order to survive.
Many online gambling enthusiasts believe that the ban on online casinos offering free spins and deposit bonuses is a move in favor of larger gambling organizations that have based their business on gaming. While this may be true to an extent, the effect of this UIGEA on smaller operators is much more significant. This is because the smaller operators do not have the capacity to cover the costs of employing people and setting up office in other countries in order to operate their business. The result is that many smaller operators find themselves at a loss as they are unable to service their clientele from a position that does not provide them with any revenue at all. This situation is unlikely to change even though the smaller operators may find themselves unable to continue operating as normal.