Gaming Labs agrees to six-figure fine over disciplinary action

TAGs: Gaming Laboratories international, Nevada Gaming Commission

New Jersey-based Gaming Laboratories International (GLI) is well known in the casino industry. It is one of two companies that is Gaming Labs agrees to six-figure fine over disciplinary actionauthorized to test and certify gambling technology and products for casinos around the globe, giving it a lot of power. That power, however, was put in check recently in Nevada after gaming authorities in the state slapped it with a six-figure fine. GLI has reportedly agreed to pay the fine and will hand over $125,000 to the Nevada Gaming Commission (NGC).

According to an exclusive report by CDC Gaming Reports, the NGC slapped GLI with the fine after the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) presented a three-count complaint against the company. The complaint was lodged over how GLI had conducted testing and certification of a product being developed by Interblock.

Interblock’s Pulse Arena system, a system that includes wagering terminals linked to a central hub for automated table games and slot machines, is tied to a system created by International Game Technology (IGT). GLI certified the platform in December 2016; however, it allegedly issued its approval before the system was integrated into that of IGT. Emails proved that GLI did not act independently of Interblock and also supplied sample reports from other manufacturers to the company, in violation of Nevada regulations.

Deborah Fuetsch, a member of the GCB, expressed concern over the violation. She said that GLI has always represented itself as an upstanding member of the community, and the discrepancies could shake its foundation.

GLI may have gotten off light. GCB member and former federal judge Philip Pro said that this settlement agreement was not the same as other disciplinary action due to GLI’s status, but did offer a warning. He said, “This is kind of a special category. I would only observe, at least in my mind, that GLI really needs to be mindful of the scrutiny that they have. From my perspective, I don’t think repeat violations would be very favorably viewed, by me certainly. I can’t speak for others.”

GCB Chairman Tony Alamo, Jr. seconded the opinion. He said, “You kind of don’t want to be the first of any settlement agreement, but you are. Me, personally, I wouldn’t want to see a second one like this going forward.”

The general counsel for GLI, Kevin Mullaly, explained to the GCB that signing the settlement was the most appropriate way to settle the issue. He explained, “We do not litigate with clients. The Nevada Gaming Control Board is our client. We take direction and control from them, and we want to do things exactly the way they want it done. Sometimes family disagrees.”


views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of