Nevada Gaming Commission approves small but significant expansion of wagering accounts
After much debate, the commission was unanimous in its approval of the amendments to Regulation 5.225, which have been in the works for over a year. Previously, funds deposited into wagering accounts could only be used for that purpose. But now patrons will have the ability to use those funds for other purchases, so long as those transactions take place in Nevada at a licensed establishment, or a tenant or affiliate of a licensee.
For example, patrons can now use wagering accounts to pay a bar or restaurant tab inside a casino or make purchases at a retail shop. It should be noted that this extension applies only to non-restricted licensees (casinos). Restricted licensees are not allowed to offer wagering accounts.
On paper the change is insignificant. But in practice, it’s a big victory for both payment providers and operators. Cashless payments have struggled for years to gain traction in casinos. This is due to their historical reliance on cash and immense regulatory and compliance hurdles for both banking and gaming. Moving money around is complicated and expensive.
This first step was described as “intermediate”. Eventually, providers want to see all restrictions lifted – after all, the accounts are funded up front by patrons, so they should in theory be able to use those funds for any purpose, just like any other debit account.
Sightline carried water for account expansions
No industry representative lobbied harder for the change than Sightline Payments. The provider participated in all discussions and workshops related to the issue over the last year-plus and its chief legal officer Jennifer Carleton was on hand again Thursday.
At one point, commissioner Brian Krolicki questioned the need for such a change and why it was necessary. “I’m just trying to understand why this is even in front of us,” he lamented. “I don’t know what the market is for this.”
Carlton quickly explained that the current restrictions are inefficient. If patrons wish to use those funds for other purposes, that money must be transferred out. Operators bear those transfer fees, which can amount to millions of dollars per year. Carleton also deftly mentioned that other markets have already lifted those restrictions – Nevada regulators hate the idea that others are innovating before them.
“We have approval in a number of other jurisdictions, other states to move forward with that concept and have signed agreements with operators to do that outside of Nevada,” she said.
Barbee played key role in advocating, explaining
From the state side, the biggest advocate for making the change was Jim Barbee, chief of the NGCB’s technical division.
He mentioned several times that providers already have the technology in place to accommodate the changes; it just hasn’t been approved. He also explained some of the basic tenets of the accounts themselves and answered questions related to money movement. In a statement following the ruling, Sightline thanked Barbee for his advocacy.
“We applaud the Nevada Gaming Commission and the work of the Gaming Control Board and its Technology Division, especially Chief Barbee, for the changes to Nevada Regulation 5.225, which will allow gaming operators and their payments partners like Sightline to launch products that enhance the casino customer experience,” Sightline CEO Omer Sattar said.
Commissioners gripe over checks and balances
Interestingly, the lengthy debate around the issue had little to do with the concept itself. Commissioners said that such an expansion is a no-brainer in the modern era. Rather, their contention had to do with one small subsection regarding how future uses for accounts could be approved.
The amended text of Regulation 5.225 includes a provision for “any other uses approved by the chair”. This refers to the chair of the Nevada Gaming Control Board. From the start, all commissioners pushed back on this language. Nevada’s dual-regulatory system is unique – the control board does most of the day-to-day legwork and the commission has the final say. Staffers argued that such language is common, but commissioners were uneasy.
“We’re here for a reason, a statutory reason and as time goes by, it’s kind of just being eroded and I’m concerned about that,” commission chair Jennifer Togliatti said. She later added that the commission is “the last to know in a lot of regards”.
Control board chair Kirk Hendrick was on hand and posited that innovation is quickly stifled by red tape.
“If the commission gets involved in day-to-day operations it will slow down the process…. If we as the board don’t have the ability to move that forward in baby steps, if we have to keep coming back to the commission and saying, ‘What about this concept’ …it will make us behind the other states,” he asserted.
Approved, but keep us updated on account expansions
Ultimately, senior deputy attorney general John Michela made a good point. The control board chair does not have ultimate discretion in expanding account usage, he said, because the guardrails are already established. These are the stipulations that transactions can only take place in Nevada at a licensee or tenant/affiliate of a licensee.
Commissioner George Markantonis, who worked in the hospitality industry for decades before his appointment, noted that licensees would jump at the opportunity.
“Every single casino will be lining up to vote for this, they will be banging on the doors to have this,” he said. All told, the item was approved but with a stipulation. Togliatti requested a report be given in December 2025 as to how many expansion requests were made and how they were adjudicated.
“It’ll be on the agenda and it’ll be called ‘Wagering Account Update’,” she joked.