September annually marks the Responsible Gaming Education Month (RGEM), a campaign initiated by the American Gaming Association to underscore and advance the commercial and tribal gaming industries’ commitment to responsible gaming. However, according to a Washington State University professor specializing in gaming economics, present regulations surrounding gambling disorders prove largely ineffective.
Currently serving as an assistant professor at Washington State University’s School of Hospitality Business Management, Kahlil Philander brings to the table impressive academic credentials and extensive professional experience. With a Ph.D. from University of Nevada, an MA in economics from University of Toronto and a bachelor’s degree in finance from University of British Columbia, Philander’s insight is undergirded by extensive research. His professional involvement entails a stint as a director of social responsibility at the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC), where he managed the GameSense program, a BCLC-developed responsible gaming initiative now employed across MGM Resorts’ U.S. portfolio. This month, MGM announced the integration of the GameSense messaging in nine NFL stadiums where its BetMGM sportsbook would be advertising.
Despite the seemingly promising approach to responsible gaming, Philander, in an op-ed published in GGB News, drew attention to the problematic fragmentation of responsible gaming in the U.S. – with individual states dictating consumer safeguarding rules. He compared the current regulatory environment to factors that precipitated the 2008 financial crisis identifying a “misalignment of incentives” that motivated banks to undertake massive risks without shouldering the full brunt of their actions.
The scholar warned that a similar narrative runs the risk of unfolding in the U.S. gaming industry as the sector continues to witness rapid expansion without commensurate advances in responsible gambling. He recognizes that the effective responsible gambling programs of today necessitate operators to place warning labels on physical slot machines and table games, along with requiring online operators to provide players with time and deposit limit tools. However, to stimulate investments in responsible gaming innovation, Philander advocates for more actions to be taken.
A stringent system of rewards and repercussions can offer one way to develop these incentives, according to Philander. While financial penalties are already imposed on casinos and online gaming operators found guilty of breaching responsible gaming protocols, he suggests that further investigation is required to determine if rewards or incentives can be utilized to encourage operators to bolster their responsible gaming tactics without regulatory compulsion.
He proposed the adoption of data-driven and scientific methods to identify operators that successfully keep recognized problematic gamblers at bay. This process potentially includes annual studies to measure revenue deriving from patrons with gaming disorders. Balancing tax reductions against damage offset estimates is challenging, but Philander maintains it represents a step forward towards continuous improvement.
Interestingly, a recent study by the American Gaming Association discovered that over 80% of gamblers are aware of responsible gaming programs and around the same percentage believe these tools promote safe play.