Shareholders push casinos to reassess indoor smoking

A novel approach has surfaced in the campaign to prohibit smoking in casinos: the utilization of shareholder voting.

Shareholders of Boyd Gaming, Bally’s Entertainment, and Caesars Entertainment will propose measures to their respective casino firms, requiring them to do a thorough analysis of the expenses related to allowing indoor smoking. Additionally, they will investigate the potential cost savings of implementing a smoke-free policy.

The plans are backed by Trinity Health, a nonprofit healthcare network, and the Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. Trinity Health, headquartered betvisa app in Livonia, Michigan, has leveraged its shareholder position to advocate for several health programs, despite holding only a minute stake in these companies. Public documents indicate that Trinity possesses a mere 440 shares of Bally’s stock, which accounts for approximately 0.001% of the firm.

Boyd, Bally’s, and Caesars vigorously opposed the inclusion of the proposals in the proxy documents sent to shareholders. The Securities and Exchange Commission rejected the casinos’ appeals, and both the plans and the reasoning behind them were communicated to all shareholders.

Boyd will be subjected to a vote about a smoke-free evaluation during its yearly shareholder meeting on Thursday. Bally’s convenes its yearly assembly on May 16, while Caesars is expected to host its own convention, most likely in June.

The three firms jointly manage a total of 75 U.S. casinos that allow smoking indoors, in accordance with state laws. Approximately 14 states have laws that allow smoking indoors at commercial casinos.

States such as Nevada and New Jersey have implemented more comprehensive bans on indoor smoking, although they have made specific allowances for casinos. Legislation aiming to prohibit indoor smoking at casinos is now progressing in multiple states nationwide, such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.

Supporters of smoking restrictions cite a study conducted by C3 Gaming, which found that casinos that prohibit smoking earn higher revenue and operate better than their counterparts that permit smoking.

Advocates of the proposal contend that shareholders should be informed about the precise amount of money that casinos allocate towards increased health insurance premiums for their staff, elevated maintenance expenses, and the potential loss of customers who are averse to cigarette smoke.

Boyd contends that it has observed an adverse effect in states where indoor smoking has been prohibited. The argument posits that the responsibility of making dafabet these decisions should be entrusted to the individual properties, as they are better equipped to adapt to local trends. Furthermore, it asserts that if shareholders are successful in enforcing a ban (which Boyd alleges is the underlying objective of the evaluation), the company will experience a loss of consumers to competitors who still permit smoking.

During the SBC Summit North America, an online gaming conference, Jan Jones Blackhurst, a board member of Caesars, expressed her opinion that the responsibility of deciding whether to prohibit smoking in casinos should be delegated to governmental authorities. She highlighted that empirical evidence has demonstrated that smoke-free casinos can see a decline in economic performance.