The Nevada Gaming Control Board is set to evaluate revisions to several Technical Standards for Gaming Devices and Associated Equipment in a meeting scheduled for October 7. This review encompasses a variety of areas, including slot systems, cashless wagering accounts, and sportsbooks.
Ten standards are under consideration for modification, with draft proposals dated between June and August. The board communicated with licensees regarding these revisions and the meeting date on September 4. Those wishing to provide feedback can do so up until October 5.
The proposed changes vary in significance, with Standard 9, which pertains to digital parimutuel systems, primarily featuring minor language additions. In contrast, Standard 3, which focuses on slot metering systems, has seen considerable alterations, including the addition and removal of whole sections. Explanatory notes accompany all the proposals, detailing the rationale behind each change.
As the leading gaming state in the US, Nevada's technology regulations have faced criticism for being slow and cluttered compared to its emerging counterparts. Under the leadership of NGCB Chair Mike Dreitzer, who assumed his role in June, modernization initiatives have become a key priority.
"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, the chief of the board's Technology Division.
The primary focus of this revision effort is to consolidate technical information into a single, user-friendly resource. Some existing Technical Standards are scattered, while other requirements exist within the state's Minimum Internal Control Standards (MICS), comprising a mix of technical and procedural mandates.
The intent is to simplify how licensees access technical information, moving away from reliance on multiple libraries. Many explanatory notes in the revisions highlight adaptations from MICS and other documents, illustrating the lengthy process that has spanned years, with fits and starts along the way.
"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," Eberwein explained.
The board aims to finalize these proposals, with anticipated stakeholder input during the comment period and at the hearing. Historically, groups such as the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers have provided insights on such revisions, though they could not be reached for comment before publication. Depending on feedback or concerns raised by the Nevada Gaming Commission, the new standards might be adopted by the year's end.
The board has seen an especially active period since the start of 2025, having issued five multimillion-dollar fines related to anti-money laundering violations for various entities on the Las Vegas Strip. This unprecedented enforcement action involves investigations into Resorts World Las Vegas, MGM Resorts, Caesars Entertainment, and the Venetian, all stemming from AML violations linked to illegal bookmaker Mathew Bowyer, who was added to the state's exclusion list in April. Additionally, Wynn Las Vegas was implicated in a separate case, forfeiting $130 million for its wrongdoings — a sum described as the largest forfeiture by a casino following admissions of criminal conduct.
Alongside standard revisions, the board has embarked on extensive overhauls of regulations covering gaming salons, AML reporting, and technical standards. Dreitzer, the fifth NGCB chair since 2019, holds a partial term that lasts until January 2027. Earlier this year, he expressed interest in seeking a full four-year term after this period concludes. With his experience in suppliers and testing labs, he understands the technical hurdles the state 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,” Dreitzer noted in January. "So when I came in, in view of the mandate from the governor and the work began by Chair Hendrick, I felt I needed to do something."
