Merkur gaming arcade lawsuit unsuccessful for gambling addiction sufferers
The Bielefeld Regional Court has sided with Merkur during a legal dispute regarding the self-exclusion of gambling addicts. The plaintiffs, who desire to be barred from Merkur gaming hubs, have alleged that there was no legal basis compelling Gauselmann to enact such measures.
This lawsuit was initiated by the Fachverband Glücksspielsucht (FAGS) on behalf of two gambling addicts hailing from North Rhine-Westphalia, after unsuccessful negotiations between FAGS, Merkur, and a mediator. The crux of the case revolved around whether or not casino operators are obligated to accept and implement ban requests. Gauselmann representatives rejected this demand on the grounds of data protection, stating that operators could not be forced to authenticate every player's identity.
Discrepancies in Interpretation
Section 6 of the State Treaty on Gambling defines the duties of gambling operators with regard to player protection. Operators must develop and implement a social strategy outlining procedures to "prevent the socially harmful effects of gambling" and "remedy" its negative consequences. The FAGS interprets the potential for house bans as a form of player protection. Meanwhile, Gauselmann's representatives view these measures as staff protection, i.e., in the event that a customer becomes violent. The court similarly distinguishes between house bans and self-exclusion in its judgment. The latter are not explicitly mentioned in the law and cannot be inferred from the law's meaning and purpose. As such, Merkur could not be ordered to recognize and implement them.
"We're pleased with the ruling - it's so unambiguous that I doubt a case at a higher court would have a chance." Mario Hoffmeister, Gauselmann Spokesperson
The decision leaves the FAGS dissatisfied. Ilona Füchtenschnieder from the trade association hoped to instate regulations that mirrored those already in place at casinos, where every visitor is registered using their ID cards and checked against a blocking file. Despite the defeat, she sees some advantages in the process:
"We've brought gambling addiction and player bans to the forefront of the debate. If the court states that there's no legal basis for bans, it's up to the lawmakers."
The association is considering an appeal against the judgment. Manfred Hecker, FAGS' legal representative, criticized the judge's decision as purely procedurally justified, resulting in a "disappointing setback for player protection."
On the Role of Profitable Addicts
Gambling addicts prove particularly valuable to the owners of amusement arcades. They continue to gamble despite being financially ruined. Reports from the University of Hamburg reveal that only 10-15% of customers contribute to 60-75% of amusement arcade turnover. However, operators are also attempting to curb problematic gambling behavior. Gauselmann employs a process known as Face-Check. This system aims to automatically register and analyze visitors' biometric information. It seeks to obstruct entry for young people with fake identification. The system also allows for comparisons with a blocking file and alerts staff as necessary. Face-Check is set to be widely deployed by the end of 2017.
However, it remains challenging that operators themselves make the final decision on blocking requests. They must balance their financial interests with their social obligations. Unsuccessful efforts to implement house bans due to legal limitations only intensify the predicament for those who recognize their addiction.
Read also:
- Remaining contenders down to two in DFB's struggle versus Brazil.
- Schalke's Transfer Assessment: A Season of Wastefulness
- Shocking development in the NBA!
- Law enforcement agencies in various metropolises plan expansive measures for May 1.
Source: www.onlinecasinosdeutschland.com
