William Bennett considering lawsuits against casinos

The Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | Tuesday, July 29, 2003 | ROD SMITH

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

Morals czar William Bennett is considering filing lawsuits against Las Vegas casino companies that may have leaked documents detailing his gambling habits.

Bennett, the architect and leading advocate of Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign, was outed in the May issue of The Washington Monthly magazine as a gambler who has wagered -- and lost -- millions over the past decade at Bellagio and Caesars Atlantic City.

During a 60-minute interview with Tim Russert on CNCB this weekend, the former education secretary complained his privacy rights had been "deliberately damaged" while also mocking Las Vegas' latest national marketing campaigns.

"By the way, there's a commercial on that people may have seen about Las Vegas, that 'What happens here stays here.' Well, not in my case. Some people there were trying to do me great harm," Bennett said.

The "What happens here" ad campaign is part of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority's latest marketing campaign to boost tourism to the city.

He argued the magazine report stemmed from the release of "some documents" by the casinos themselves which was not legal and violated his privacy rights.

He alleges documents were selectively leaked to create a false impression that he had a gaming problem.

While Bennett did not dispute the legitimacy of the documents and said he had no problem with the reporters who have written stories on his gambling, he told Russert the release of the information was not legal and he is looking into the possibility of legal action against the casinos.

On Monday, Bennett declined to comment further on the possibility of legal action against the casino companies.

Spokesmen for Park Place Entertainment Corp. , owner of the Caesars Atlantic City, and MGM Mirage, which operates Bellagio, declined comment.

Industry insiders have said details in The Washington Monthly article suggest the data about Bennett's gambling habits might actually have come from documents produced by Central Credit, a subsidiary of First Data Corp. of Greenwood Village, Colo.

Central Credit, which has denied being a source of the documents, is the gaming industry equivalent of credit reporting agency TRW. It allows member casinos to run credit checks on debts, marker activity and repayment habits of casino customers.

Industry experts and civil liberties attorneys doubt Bennett has a cause of action.

Las Vegas professor and casino gambling expert Bill Thompson said Bennett's privacy rights "were violated. I think he has a beef, but I don't know if he has a legal argument."

Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the Nevada chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said "It might be good policy, but in the absence of some policy or contract, it does not appear there is a cause of action," he said.

[colorado tanker]

Central Credit, which has denied being a source of the documents, is the gaming industry equivalent of credit reporting agency TRW. It allows member casinos to run credit checks on debts, marker activity and repayment habits of casino customers.

So, am I to assume that all the folks piling on Bill Bennett would have no objection to TRW or some company they do business with releasing their credit or transaction history?

I disagree with the ACLU here (surprise). I think there could well be a breach of privacy action.

[dasein64]

Looks to me that is exactly what he is doing. Even if he cannot recover legally, he is calling attention to the lie that what is gambled in LV is a private matter between him and the casino. Where is the hypocricy? He was engaging in a legal activity with his own money.

[MinuteGal]

Your #20.....Not very nice. Did this make you feel better?

Leni

[Dilbert56]

His gambling may have cost him money but didn't ruin anyone's life. He still provides very well for his family. He also broke no laws or commandments. The people he took umbrage with, particularly Bill Clinton, did lie, commit adultery, committed crimes (perjury, obstruction), and ruined many lives (travel office, Vince Foster, Web Hubbel, etc.) His legal action isn't to absolve him of responsibility, just prosecuting people for leaking confidential info.

[Ruth A.]

Time to suck it up and let the issue die. Why start laying the lawsuit game like the Condits.

[Bluntpoint]

What is the "Mustang Ranch" listed on that credit report?

[mware]

Seems to me Bennett has taken responsiblity for his actions. How about the casinos taking responsibility for releasing confidential information on their clients.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

"By the way, there's a commercial on that people may have seen about Las Vegas, that 'What happens here stays here.' Well, not in my case. Some people there were trying to do me great harm," Bennett said.

Gotta admit, every time I see that commercial I think of him. He has a point.

[tracer]

Thanks for the update -- I hadn't heard his latest, revised statement that appears to be in sharp contrast to his original disclaimer.

The guy has a problem, and he seems to acknowledge it. The truths contained in his writings remain true, however. And his sad tale reminds us all of our frailty as human beings...

[oldironsides]

Casinos owe the person using their facilities privacy. They cannot keep gamblers coming back when employees leak information to the media selectively. When privacy goes, so will the gamblers. Bennett made a choice to waste lots of money. I will bet that the profile of the casino dime dropper is easy to match. Anyone messing with a big spenders privacy has already been found and fired. You can count on it. They do not want the limos shuffling the gamblers from airports to be empty.

Bennett will only have to file and the casino will settle. The casino does not want to drag this gambler privacy issue back out on to the front page. I hope Bennett learned from this and he finds another hobby.

[Uncle Hal]

I think Bill should drop it. Just consider the gambling episode as a learning experience. I am sure he would be one of the first to complain about all the frivolous law suits in this country. Move on.

[lelio]

There are lots of things Jesus wouldn't do. You, me, and everyone else here probably did a few of them this morning already.

So WWJD is just a crock?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So WWJD is just a crock?

Pretty much. It was a slick ad campaign concocted by a bunch of grifters to sell some crap.

It trivializes Christ, and denigrates His status as God made flesh, teacher and savior.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The casino also doesn't want to let people know that it keeps such meticulous records on its customers, and you're right, it will settle.

[MEGoody]

"I really don't care if they 'out' them are not."

So you wouldn't mind being 'outed' - having personal information, oh say, your medical records, your telephone records, your credit card and cable bills, made public?

[OldFriend]

Once the trash is put out at the curb it no longer belongs to me.

Bennet gambled in a room with other people. Unless he got them to sign an affadavit swearing to never reveal his presence in the room he essentially put his behaviour in the public domain.

He's shifting attention from his behaviour......which I had no problem with in the first place. I do have a problem with his intention to sue because it became public.

[George W. Bush]

If he wins this game of litigation, he'll get a payoff from the casinos. If he loses the case, he'll lose money on this. Just more of Bennett's gambling with casinos. Now he's pulling the lever with lawyers in a court, hoping for his little addiction payoff.

And he claimed he wasn't going to gamble any more.

What the heck. Even if he wins, he'll pump the money back into some slot machine anyway.

[OldFriend]

You go out in public your behaviour is in the public domain.

[u-89]

The big question is this whole Bennett affair is why now?

Why was Bennett taken down at this point when nothing of importance seemed to be going on. Apparently anyone who knew him knew he was a big stakes gambler yet this did not come out during his critque of the Clinton's, etc. To date I have not heard anything as to who was behind this and why it was decided that now was the time to discredit him. Any clues?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Probably. There is no denying that he does have a problem - but his gripe is very real in this instance.