The Nevada Gaming Control Board plans to review proposed updates to the state's Technical Standards for Gaming Devices and Associated Equipment during its upcoming meeting on October 7. The revisions cover a range of topics from slot systems to cashless wagering accounts, race and sportsbooks, among others.
There are ten standards slated for revision, and the drafts date back to proposals made from June to August. On September 4, the board notified licensees about the revisions and the meeting date. Interested parties can submit their comments on the proposals until October 5.
The scope of these updates varies, with many revisions involving substantive changes to the language. For example, in Standard 9, which pertains to digital parimutuel systems, the adjustments reflect mainly minor additions; conversely, Standard 3, governing slot metering systems, has seen entire sections added and removed. The proposals frequently include explanatory notes clarifying the changes.
Despite being recognized as a leading gaming state, Nevada's technology regulations are often viewed as lagging compared to other emerging jurisdictions. Since taking the helm in June 2022, NGCB Chair Mike Dreitzer has prioritized modernization, and these revisions are part of that ongoing effort. "We finally got to a point where we said, you know what, let’s drop all our other efforts right now and get these over the finish line and get them up for comment so that we can make sure that we’re current with things," stated Jeremy Eberwein, chief of the board's Technology Division.
A significant portion of the revisions involves consolidating the technical information into a single location. While some existing Technical Standards were already in place, numerous related requirements were found within the state’s Minimum Internal Control Standards, which encompass a mix of both technical and procedural regulations. This consolidation aims to streamline the process for licensees to locate technical information without having to sift through multiple resources. Most explanatory notes outline adaptations sourced from the MICS and others. Eberwein noted that this project has been in development for years, with progress intermittently halting.
"We had various iterations of the drafts internally probably going back at least a decade, and just never made it to the finish line for various reasons," he explained.
The board anticipates that the revised drafts will be close to final, although they expect input from stakeholders during the comment period and the upcoming hearing. The Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers, which typically participates in discussions like these, had not provided feedback by the publication deadline. Depending on the feedback and any objections raised by the Nevada Gaming Commission, the new standards could be adopted and published by the end of the year.
The NGCB has been particularly active since the beginning of 2025, imposing five substantial anti-money laundering fines on entities along the Las Vegas Strip—a notable series of sanctions in the region's gambling industry. Four investigations focused on Resorts World Las Vegas, MGM Resorts, Caesars Entertainment, and the Venetian, all tied to AML violations connected to illegal bookmaker Mathew Bowyer, who was added to the state’s exclusion list in April. Meanwhile, the case involving Wynn Las Vegas was independent; Wynn had to forfeit $130 million to federal authorities due to its misdeeds, which prosecutors labeled as potentially the largest forfeiture by a casino for admitting to criminal wrongdoing.
Additionally, the board has been revising various sets of regulations, including those governing gaming salons, AML reporting, and now technical standards. Dreitzer, who became the fifth NGCB chair since 2019, holds a partial term that will last until January 2027. He expressed interest in securing a full four-year term after this. With his experience in supply and testing labs, Dreitzer understands the technical challenges Nevada faces.
"When I started here, I had multiple conversations with various licensees who operate across multiple jurisdictions, and the consistent commentary I heard was that they would go to Nevada last, if not never at all, because there was concern about the time it would take, the lack of regulatory consistency, the lack of clarity," he relayed earlier this year. "So when I came in, in view of the mandate from the governor and the work begun by Chair Hendrick, I felt I needed to do something."
