Self-Exclusion and the Compulsive Gambler: The House Shouldn't Always Win

I. IN TRODUCTION ................................................................................... 63 A. MERRILL v. TRUMP INDIANA, INC ................................................. 65 B. STATE GAMING REGULATIONS .................................................. 69 C. PROBLEMS WITH THE REGULATIONS ........................................ 70 D. COMPULSIVE GAMBLING AS AN ADDICTION/ DISEASE .................. 74 E. THE SOCIETAL EFFECTS OF COMPULSIVE GAMBLING ................... 77 II. COMPULSIVE GAMBLING AND INTOXICATION LAWS ......................... 78 A. DISTINGUISHING DRAM SHOP LIABILITY FROM POTENTIAL COMPULSIVE GAMBLER LIABILITY ............................................... 79 B. THE ABILITY TO EXCLUDE ....................................................... 82 III. THE DESHANEYANALOGY .................................................................. 84 IV. TORT-BASED ECONOMIC LOSSES ....................................................... 88 V. ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR IMPOSING THE DUTY ................... 89 VI. THE FUTURE OF SELF-EXCLUSION LITIGATION .............................. 91 V II. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 93