“Revolutionizing Casino Experiences: Nevada’s New Way to Spend Beyond Wagering!”

Nevada bettors have recently been permitted by the Gaming Commission to utilize their wagering accounts at the casino’s dining establishments, retail venues, and other facilities. Previously, patrons of the casino were only allowed to use these accounts for gambling, but a push from cashless gaming firms such as Sightline Payments spurred this modification.

However, regulators did not meet a request to permit the accounts to be used for expenditures off the property and out of state.

“The adjustments will enable gaming operators and their payment partners to introduce products that improve the customer experience,” stated Sightline CEO Omer Sattar. “This marks an essential step forward for innovations in gaming payments, reinforcing Nevada’s position as a leader in the industry.”

Senior Deputy Attorney General John Michela indicated that further discussions are needed regarding whether the industry favors the use of wagering accounts everywhere, akin to debit cards, and if such extensive use aligns with the Bank Secrecy Act and other federal banking regulations.

The singular concern from Commission members was a provision in the proposed regulations that would have empowered the chairperson of the Gaming Control Board to broaden the spending of wagering accounts on the property.

“What if we have a specific chair who believes the account should be available for all?” queried Commission Chair Jennifer Togliatti. “What oversight exists if hypothetical Chair Smith states that all retail purposes are permissible at all times every day?”

Michela explained that the regulation constrains the Board chair’s authority, as the wagering account is confined to Nevada casino premises. The chair already possesses discretion regarding fund deposits and withdrawals from a wagering account and how debits are processed. “This expansion would only apply to purchases made in Nevada at licensees, affiliates, or tenants.”

Commissioner Brian Krolicki remarked, “We aim to innovate and support the industry to prosper and compete with any other jurisdiction. I completely understand that. However, concerning racebooks, sportsbooks, and mobile-gaming systems, a technology might be introduced and approved by the chair. That’s where I have a concern. Sightline presented a concept. They seek assurance that this effort isn’t hindered by our actions.”

Others within the sector are anticipating the Commission’s approval of regulations, and Krolicki expressed that he seeks reassurance about what is ahead.

“These are significant matters,” Krolicki noted. “We are always advised to be mindful of foreign corrupt practices and money laundering, yet that’s not the focus here. Technologies do intersect with those issues. I’m just unsure if this has been consolidated into a broader package. I have some worries about unforeseen repercussions.”

Jim Barbee, Chief of the Gaming Control Board Technology Division, indicated that an undisclosed manufacturer has approved technology with the capability to execute this now, but has placed conditions on its current use. This has initiated discussions on the feasibility of utilizing wagering accounts in the gift shop or settling bills for dinner or shows on the property, he added.

“What if they want to apply the same wagering account used for credits on a slot machine to make a purchase at a tenant in the casino mall?” Barbee stated. “The technology is already available for this, but it’s not sanctioned here. At least one additional manufacturer has it ready to launch quickly, provided they find a customer willing to develop it further.”

Krolicki shared that he has only seen Sightline provide testimony regarding the regulatory change and questioned whether the Nevada Resort Association had contributed input. “Is there a demand for this? Or do some insightful individuals simply presume there will be demand if it gets approved, facilitating the marketing of this new product?” Krolicki inquired.
Barbee mentioned that the NRA hasn’t voiced any comments. However, he explained that the Control Board is striving to keep up with advancements in gaming technology and to bring fresh concepts and features into the state.

He outlined the approval process when a manufacturer submits technology for review to the Technology Division. Something innovative might require him to consult with the Board chair. An appeal can be made to the Commission if a denial occurs.

Jennifer Carleton, chief legal officer for Sightline, a digital payments corporation, discussed the industry’s interest in the regulatory change. “The challenges that this proposed regulation and technology seek to address involve two primary issues. There are always fees associated when a player transfers money. When a customer engages in internet wagering, places a sportsbook bet, or plays a slot or table game, then concludes their gambling and aims to use those funds for non-gaming purposes, they must transfer that money out of the wagering account. Again, fees are typically incurred, which are normally the operator’s responsibility. Hence, the operator has an incentive to enable the customer to utilize those funds in real-time rather than requiring them to withdraw their money to access non-wagering options. This cycle can accumulate to millions of dollars annually for operators.”

Carleton noted that operators they have communicated with show interest in the product, and that discussions with regulators have occurred over the last 18 months to clarify the issues with the churn and what the technology can achieve.

“Clearly, we prefer it to be broadened beyond just the affiliates and tenants to allow customers to use wagering accounts anywhere, but we acknowledge that potentially Nevada isn’t prepared for that at this moment,” Carleton added. “We have received approvals in several other jurisdictions and states to advance that concept and have entered into agreements with operators for that outside of Nevada.”

Togliatti continued to express concern that the Board chair would possess unrestricted discretion concerning potential uses of the wagering account expenditures. “It’s not just dipping a toe or a foot in the water. We’re fully immersed here. And we’re getting our hair wet.”

Barbee indicated that they were unable to encompass every possible expense that might arise in the future and would consequently need to navigate the Commission approval procedure once more.

“That’s precisely the problem: We lack knowledge about what lies ahead,” Krolicki replied.

Togliatti inquired if the Commission would receive a memo whenever any matters are sanctioned by the chair. Based on her experience, she believed the answer was no and continued to challenge the regulation as articulated. “People assume the Commission is merely a rubber stamp, but we serve a purpose,” Togliatti remarked. “As time progresses, it’s being diminished, and I am worried about that. I don’t disagree with the concept. It’s the wording that shows no involvement on our end. I concur we should be at the forefront. However, it feels as if we are the last to be informed, which is the aspect that troubles me.”

Gaming Control Board Chair Kirk Hendrick expressed his understanding of her concerns and those of other Commission members.

“I recognize your apprehensions, but if the Commission becomes engaged in the daily operations, it will decelerate the process. This has been in discussion for a year and a half and we’ve made a progressive step. If we continually have to return to the Commission, it will hinder us in comparison to other states and cause our operators and manufacturers to doubt Nevada’s efficiency.”

Krolicki mentioned that he valued Hendrick’s insights but remained anxious about the uncertainties. He insisted that he preferred to revisit the matter to investigate any unforeseen implications and proposed a possible expiration of the regulation.

Hendrick stated that if the worry pertains to the Board chair, the terminology could be revised to suggest it might be articulated for any reason on the premises. He noted that any expiration of the regulation for a year or two would complicate the process. He offered to provide updates to the Commission.

“We don’t want to delve into matters currently being discussed,” Hendrick said. “Many of these manufacturers aspire to be first to market. I prefer not to discuss their prospective products in a public forum. We’ve received three submissions in the past quarter from those wanting to move forward. The chair has sanctioned their right to proceed, but you might not be able to explore it in too much depth.”

The Commission requested a betting update in December 2025. Togliatti was informed by legal staff that should members be discontent with the regulation, they possess the authority to amend it.

In advocating for approval, Commissioner George Markantonis, a prior member of the NRA, stated that every casino would be “knocking on the doors to obtain this. Gamblers prefer not to visit an ATM to withdraw cash or utilize a credit or debit card when they can use their betting accounts to pay for beverages at a bar. Many retail outlets are tenants and don’t even permit you to charge (the expense) to your room. The entity that accomplishes this first gains a competitive edge.”