The text below is from the 2004 amended compacts between California and the Indian Tribes which run casinos, setting out patron dispute resolution: V. PATRON DISPUTES A. Section 8.1.10(d) of the 1999 Compact is repealed and replaced by the following: Section 8.1.10(d). The Tribal Gaming Agency shall promulgate regulations governing patron disputes over the play or operation of any game, including any refusal to pay a patron any alleged winnings from any Gaming Activities, which regulations must meet the following minimum standards: (i) A patron who makes a complaint to personnel of the Gaming Operation over the play or operation of any game within seven (7) days of said play or operation shall be advised in writing of his or her right to request, within fifteen (15) days of the date of said dispute, resolution of the complaint by the Tribal Gaming Agency, and if dissatisfied with the resolution, to seek binding arbitration of the dispute before a retired judge pursuant to the terms and provisions in subparagraph (iii). (ii) Upon request by the patron for a resolution of his or her complaint, the Tribal Gaming Agency shall conduct an investigation, shall provide to the patron a copy of its regulations concerning patron complaints, and shall render a decision consistent with federal gaming standards. The decision shall be issued within sixty (60) days of the patron’s request, shall be in writing, shall be based on the facts surrounding the dispute, and shall set forth the reasons for the decision. (iii) If the patron is dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribal Gaming Agency, or no decision is issued within the sixty (60) day period, the patron may request that any such complaint over any claimed prizes or winnings and the amount thereof, be settled by binding arbitration before a single arbitrator, who shall be a retired judge, in accordance with the streamlined arbitration rules and procedures of JAMS (or if those rules no longer exist, the closest equivalent). Upon such request, the Tribe shall consent to such arbitration and agree to abide by the decision of the arbitrator; provided, however, that if any alleged winnings are found to be a result of a mechanical, electronic or electromechanical failure, which is not due to the intentional acts or gross negligence of the Tribe or its agents, the arbitrator shall deny the patron’s claim for the winnings but shall award reimbursement of the amounts wagered by the patron which were lost as a result of any said failure. To effectuate such consent, the Tribe shall, in the exercise of its sovereignty, waive its right to assert sovereign immunity in connection with the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and in any action to (A) enforce the parties’ obligation to arbitrate, (B) confirm, correct, modify, or vacate the arbitral award rendered in the arbitration, or (C) enforce or execute a judgment based upon said award. The cost and expenses of such arbitration shall be initially borne by the Tribe but the arbitrator shall award to the prevailing party its costs and expenses (but not attorney fees). Any party dissatisfied with the award of the arbitrator may at the party’s election invoke the JAMS Optional Arbitration Appeal Procedure (and if those rules no longer exist, the closest equivalent); provided that the party making such election must bear all costs and expenses of JAMS and the arbitrators associated with the Appeal Procedure regardless of the outcome. Notice it sets out a procedure to bring the dispute to neutral arbitration. This language is not in any earlier compacts I have seen - only in the 2004 compacts - it amends earlier language which requires a tribal dispute rwesolution procedure. Many tribes do not have the 2004 amended compacts yet - but many do - just offering this up for anyone that it may be relevant for - full info on tribal compacts - including all language for individual compacts - can be found at www.cgcc.ca.gov
