MGM Springfield took away this man’s winnings after he won $65k, post self-exclusion expiry

This one is a bit interesting. Posted on Reddit:

Won $65,000 at MGM Springfield Playing Blackjack — They Took It All Over a Self-Exclusion That Should’ve Expired
Edit: I tried to clean up grammar with chatgpt and it changed story but I have video proof

Last night, I hit $65,000 playing blackjack at MGM Springfield. It was one of the biggest moments of my life. But right after the win, security pulled me aside and told me I wouldn’t be getting the money.

Why? Because I had signed up for a 1-year voluntary self-exclusion a little over a year ago. I hadn’t gone through a reentry process — mostly because I didn’t know there was one. I assumed that after a year, it was done. Over.

And since then, I’ve been to that same casino multiple times. I scanned my ID each time and was allowed in with no issue. I even played blackjack before — again, with no problems. So when I went back that night with a friend, I figured I was in the clear.

But once I won the $65K, they flagged me. Only then did they say I wasn’t supposed to be there.

Look — I understand the point of voluntary exclusion. I signed up during a hard period in my life, right after my dad passed away. I wasn’t a problem gambler, but it had become an unhealthy escape. I did the right thing by stepping away.

But this feels wrong. If your system lets me in, scans my ID, allows me to sit down at a table and play — and only pulls me once I’ve won — how is that fair?

Would love to hear people’s honest thoughts. I’m not trying to cheat anyone — I just feel like I’m being punished for something their system should’ve enforced before I ever sat at the table.

What Happened

1. Voluntary Self-Exclusion Program:
   • You enrolled in a 1-year voluntary self-exclusion program at MGM Springfield, likely through the Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s (MGC) Voluntary Self-Exclusion (VSE) program. This program allows individuals to ban themselves from gambling venues to address gambling-related concerns.
   • The MGC’s VSE program typically requires a formal reentry process to be removed from the exclusion list after the designated period (e.g., 1 year). This often involves submitting a written request or attending a hearing to confirm you’re ready to return to gambling responsibly. If you didn’t complete this process, you likely remained on the self-exclusion list, even after the year expired.
2. Casino Entry Despite Exclusion:
   • You mentioned that you’ve visited MGM Springfield multiple times since the self-exclusion period began, including playing blackjack without issue. This suggests a potential failure in the casino’s ID scanning or enforcement system. Casinos are required to check IDs against the self-exclusion list, but errors can occur due to technical glitches, human oversight, or inconsistent enforcement.
   • If you were allowed to enter and gamble, it could indicate that MGM Springfield’s system didn’t flag your ID as excluded, which is a flaw on their end.
3. Winnings Confiscated After the Big Win:
   • Once you won $65,000, the casino likely conducted a deeper review (e.g., during payout processing) and discovered your active self-exclusion status. Under MGC regulations, casinos are obligated to withhold winnings from self-excluded individuals, as gambling while on the list violates the terms of the agreement.
   • The casino’s decision to confiscate your winnings aligns with standard self-exclusion policies, which often state that any winnings earned by an excluded individual may be forfeited. This is meant to deter excluded individuals from gambling and to protect them from further harm.
4. Why It Feels Unfair:
   • The casino allowed you to enter, play, and accumulate winnings without flagging your status earlier. This inconsistency likely gave you the reasonable impression that your self-exclusion had expired or was no longer enforced.
   • The fact that they only intervened after your significant win feels punitive, as it suggests selective enforcement—letting you play when you’re losing but stepping in when you win big.

Key Points to Consider

• Self-Exclusion Rules in Massachusetts:
  • According to the MGC, self-exclusion is a legally binding agreement. If you’re on the list, you’re prohibited from entering gaming areas, and any winnings can be confiscated. The MGC’s website outlines that removal from the list requires a formal process, which you may not have completed.
  • The responsibility to enforce self-exclusion lies with the casino, but individuals are also expected to adhere to the terms of their agreement. If you unknowingly violated the terms by entering, the casino can still enforce the consequences.
• Casino’s Responsibility:
  • MGM Springfield’s failure to flag your ID during prior visits or at the start of your blackjack session could be seen as a lapse in their compliance with MGC regulations. Casinos are required to have robust systems to identify excluded individuals at entry points.
  • However, casinos often argue that they’re not liable for such oversights, as the self-exclusion agreement places some responsibility on the individual to avoid gambling venues.
• Your Video Evidence:
  • The YouTube video you linked (https://youtube.com/shorts/wkTf6fOddog?feature=share) could be crucial in demonstrating your side of the story. If it shows you openly entering the casino, scanning your ID, or playing without interference, it could support your claim that the casino failed to enforce the exclusion until after your win.

Possible Next Steps

1. Contact MGM Springfield:
   • Reach out to the casino’s management or compliance team to discuss the situation. Highlight that you were allowed to enter and play multiple times without issue, which could suggest a failure in their enforcement process. Provide your video evidence to strengthen your case.
   • Ask for a detailed explanation of why your self-exclusion status wasn’t flagged earlier and whether there’s any recourse for your winnings.
2. File a Complaint with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission:
   • The MGC oversees self-exclusion programs and casino compliance. You can file a formal complaint with them, explaining the situation and emphasizing the casino’s failure to prevent you from gambling. The MGC may investigate whether MGM Springfield violated its obligations.
   • Contact the MGC at their website (https://massgaming.com/) or call their office for guidance on submitting a complaint.
3. Consult a Lawyer:
   • Consider consulting an attorney who specializes in gaming law or consumer protection in Massachusetts. They can assess whether you have a legal claim against MGM Springfield, particularly if their negligence (e.g., failing to enforce the exclusion) caused you financial harm.
   • A lawyer could also help you navigate the self-exclusion reentry process or negotiate with the casino for a resolution.
4. Review the Self-Exclusion Terms:
   • Request a copy of the self-exclusion agreement you signed to confirm the terms, including the duration and reentry process. This will help clarify whether the casino followed protocol or if there was an error on their part.
5. Publicize Your Story (Carefully):
   • Your video and posts on platforms like X can raise awareness and potentially pressure the casino to address your case. However, be cautious about sharing too many personal details, as this could complicate legal proceedings.

Honest Thoughts

• Fairness: It’s understandable to feel cheated when the casino allowed you to gamble without issue until you won a large sum. Their system’s failure to flag you earlier is concerning and suggests a lack of diligence. However, legally, the casino is likely within its rights to withhold the winnings due to your active self-exclusion status.
• Responsibility: While the casino should have better systems in place, the self-exclusion agreement likely places some responsibility on you to avoid gambling venues. The lack of clarity about the reentry process is a common issue with these programs and could be a point to raise with the MGC.
• Resolution: Your best chance at recourse may be to argue that the casino’s negligence (allowing you to enter repeatedly) misled you into believing you were no longer excluded. The video evidence could be key in supporting this argument.