Mississippi Gaming Commission August 2025 Meeting Actions

Some government meetings are like a slow cooker: nothing looks dramatic from the outside, but inside, a whole lot is getting tender, organized, and
ready to serve. The Mississippi Gaming Commission’s regular monthly meeting on August 21, 2025 was one of those “quietly important”
sessionspacked with licensing approvals, suitability determinations, ownership and holding-company housekeeping, and a major package of rule
adoptions that read like the regulatory version of cleaning out a garage (and labeling every bin).

If you care about how casinos are regulated in Mississippiwhether you’re a compliance professional, an operator, a vendor, an attorney, a journalist,
or just someone who likes understanding how the grown-up machinery worksthis meeting mattered. It reflected the three big realities of modern
regulated gaming:

• People matter: regulators keep a close eye on who is behind a gaming company and whether they’re suitable to be involved.
• Vendors matter: modern casinos run on technology, payments, data, and equipmentmuch of it supplied by licensed third parties.
• Rules matter: the administrative code is the instruction manual that keeps the industry fair, auditable, and accountable.

One important note: this article is about regulation and oversight, not gambling tips. If you’re underage, gambling is illegaland
regulators exist in part to protect the public, including minors. Consider this a “how the system works” explainer, not a “go do the thing” guide.

What the Commission Did on August 21, 2025

According to the publicly posted meeting report, Executive Director Jay McDaniel and Commissioners (including Chairman
Franc Lee, attending virtually, along with Kent Nicaud and Jeremy Felder) considered a slate of
matters that fell into four practical buckets:

1. Licensing approvals (operators and manufacturers/distributors)
2. Findings of suitability (key individuals and entities tied to licensed gaming operations)
3. Other approvals (ownership/holding-company registrations and equity/transaction items)
4. Final adoption of Mississippi rules (a large batch of administrative code updates)

Licensing Actions: Who Got Approved (and Why It Matters)

In Mississippi, casino gaming is not a “show up and open a slot floor” industry. It’s a licensed, heavily monitored ecosystem. The Commission’s
licensing approvals are the gateway for companies to operate casinos and for vendors to supply the equipment and services that make casino operations
run like a modern, audited business instead of a chaos carnival.

Manufacturer and Distributor Licenses: The “Supply Chain” of Casino Gaming

The Commission approved the issuance of manufacturer and distributor licenses to several companiesan action that sounds boring until you remember
that casinos depend on licensed supply chains. Slot machines, table-game equipment, payment kiosks, card decks, sports data feeds, and related tech
don’t just wander onto a casino floor by accident. They arrive through a regulated process designed to reduce fraud risk, protect game integrity, and
make sure oversight isn’t a guessing game.

The meeting report lists manufacturer/distributor approvals for:

• Merkur Gaming US, LLC (Manufacturer and Distributor)
• Penn Sports Interactive, LLC (Manufacturer and Distributor)
• The United States Playing Card Company (Manufacturer and Distributor)
• Genius Sports Media, Inc. (Manufacturer and Distributor)
• Passport Technology USA, Inc. (Manufacturer and Distributor)
• TCS John Huxley America, Inc. (Manufacturer and Distributor)

A quick “so what?” for each categorywithout turning this into a snooze-fest:

• Slot and game suppliers (e.g., Merkur): these approvals help casinos diversify game content and floor offerings. More vendors can
  mean more competition and more product choicewithin a controlled framework.
• Sports and data vendors (e.g., Genius Sports; Penn Sports Interactive): sports pools and related systems rely on data feeds,
  reporting, and technical services. Licensing adds accountability to that pipeline.
• Payments and cash access (e.g., Passport Technology): payments are a compliance hotspotanti-fraud controls, AML expectations,
  recordkeeping, and audit trails all live here.
• Table games equipment (e.g., TCS John Huxley; USPCC): yes, even cards and dealing gear matter. Table games rely on controlled,
  traceable supplies and equipment that can be inspected and audited.

Operator Licenses: The Entities Behind the Casino Signs

The Commission also approved operator licenses to:

• BSLO, LLC (Operator)
• BTN, LLC (Operator)
• HWCC-Tunica, LLC (Operator)

If those names don’t ring a bell, that’s normal. Casino properties often operate through entities whose legal names don’t match the neon sign out
front. The Commission’s agenda tied these entities to specific casino operations (for example, BSLO connected with Hollywood Casino Gulf Coast and
BTN with Boomtown Casino Biloxi, among others). That kind of structure is common in regulated industries: regulators license the legal entity that
holds the responsibility, not the marketing brand that appears on a billboard.

Practical impact: operator licensing approvals are not cosmetic. They clarify who is responsible for compliance, internal controls, reporting, and
ongoing suitability obligations in Mississippi.

Findings of Suitability: The “Who Are You Really?” Checklist

A licensing decision is often about the company. A finding of suitability is about the people (and sometimes entities) who can
influence the companyexecutives, owners, key decision-makers, and individuals with positions that matter for integrity and oversight. Mississippi
regulation treats suitability as a core safeguard: the idea is that gaming is a privilege, and the privilege comes with a “show us you’re fit” standard.

The meeting report lists approved findings of suitability for the following individuals and entities:

• Lars Felderhoff – Merkur Gaming US, LLC
• Dominik Raasch – Merkur Gaming US, LLC
• Michael Gauselmann – Merkur Gaming US, LLC
• Jochen Markus Clemens – Merkur Gaming US, LLC
• Jürgen Stühmeyer – Merkur Gaming US, LLC
• Manfred Richard Stoffers – Merkur Gaming US, LLC
• David Schnabel – Merkur Gaming US, LLC
• Anthony Dominick Scudiero – Majestic Mississippi, LLC d/b/a Fitz Casino & Hotel Tunica
• Justin James Carter – connected with Penn Entertainment, Inc. and several related Mississippi casino entities and interactive units
• Susan Jane Varnes – Treasure Bay, LLC d/b/a Treasure Bay Casino
• Lee Ann Hunter – Treasure Bay, LLC d/b/a Treasure Bay Casino
• Robert Michael Brown – Robinson Property Group LLC d/b/a Horseshoe Casino Tunica
• Terry Wayne Green – Gulfside Casino Partnership d/b/a Island View Casino Resort
• Cynthia Rose Rutherford – Cure Land Company L.L.C.
• Michael David Cure, Sr. – Cure Land Company L.L.C.
• Susan Cure Gollott – Cure Land Company L.L.C.
• Joseph Richard Cure – Cure Land Company L.L.C.

Why Suitability Is a Big Deal (Even When It Looks Like a Name List)

On paper, a suitability list can look like the world’s least exciting roll call. In practice, it’s a statement about how regulated gaming stays
regulated. Suitability reviews help regulators answer questions like:

• Who can influence the business decisions, finances, and operations of a licensed gaming entity?
• Are there disqualifying issues that could threaten integrity, compliance, or public trust?
• Is the ownership/control picture transparent enough for ongoing oversight?

In other words: this is the Commission making sure the driver’s seat isn’t being quietly swapped while nobody’s looking.

Other Approvals: Holding Companies, Equity Moves, and Corporate “Plumbing”

Regulated gaming isn’t just about casinos and slot machinesit’s also about corporate structure. Ownership and control changes can affect
accountability, reporting, and enforcement. That’s why commissions often approve transactions like equity transfers, restructurings, and the
registration (or de-registration) of holding companies.

The meeting report lists these additional approvals:

Merkur Gaming US, LLC: Holding Company Registrations

• Registration of Merkur.com AG as a holding company of Merkur Gaming US, LLC
• Registration of Gauselmann Familienstiftung (Gauselmann Family Foundation) as a holding company of Merkur Gaming US, LLC

This is where regulatory language starts to sound like a spell from a fantasy novel. (“By the power of Gauselmann Familienstiftung…!”) But the
concept is straightforward: if an upstream entity can control or materially influence a licensed business, regulators want it identified, reviewed,
and registered as part of the oversight structure.

Gaming Arts, LLC: Equity Transfer and Holding Company Registrations

• Transfer of equity interests or securities of Gaming Arts, LLC
• Registration of Merkur Gaming US, LLC as a holding company of Gaming Arts, LLC
• Registration of Merkur.com AG as a holding company of Gaming Arts, LLC
• Registration of Gauselmann Familienstiftung as a holding company of Gaming Arts, LLC
• De-registration of The Colvin Family Gaming Trust as a holding company of Gaming Arts, LLC

If you zoom out, this looks like a classic regulatory snapshot of corporate change: someone is moving equity, a new chain of holding-company
relationships is being recognized, and an older holding structure is being removed from the regulated picture.

Why that matters: when ownership changes, regulators need a clean line of sight into control. Registering holding companies and de-registering
prior ones keeps the “who ultimately owns what” story accurateso compliance obligations don’t get lost in a maze of subsidiaries.

Treasure Bay: Equity Transfer Approval

• Transfer of equity interests or securities of Treasure Bay Gaming & Resorts, Inc.

Treasure Bay’s ownership-related approval is another example of the Commission’s role as a gatekeeper for significant transactions connected to
licensed gaming operations. Even when a casino’s day-to-day experience feels the same to patrons, regulators care about what’s happening at the
ownership and control level because that’s where risk (and responsibility) often lives.

Final Adoption of Mississippi Rules: The “Big Binder” Moment

The meeting’s headline “systems” item was the final adoption of Mississippi Administrative Code ruleslisted as dozens of separate
adoptions. The agenda cataloged a long set of changes across multiple parts and chapters, including revisions, chapter moves between parts, and
title changes. In plain English: this looked like a substantial maintenance-and-modernization pass on the regulatory framework.

The meeting report described this as 46 different adoptions under “Final Adoption of Mississippi Rules.” The agenda’s list shows
rule changes spanning multiple parts of Title 13, including (among other items) licensing, operations, exclusion/enforcement-related structure,
internal controls, and technical standards.

Why Rule Adoptions Matter More Than People Think

If licensing and suitability are the “who,” rule adoptions are the “how.” The administrative code is where regulators specify:

• How licensing applications are processed and what approvals are required
• How casinos must maintain internal controls and financial accountability
• How gaming devices and systems must meet integrity and technical standards
• How enforcement powers and disciplinary processes operate
• How recordkeeping and auditing expectations get translated into real-world procedures

And here’s the key: these rules don’t just affect casinos. They affect vendors, payment providers, sports data companies, and anyone who touches the
regulated gaming ecosystem. When rules get reorganized, clarified, or updated, compliance teams everywhere start highlighting PDFs like it’s a sport.

How These Actions Connect to Mississippi’s Bigger Gaming Picture

Mississippi’s commercial casino industry is large, regionally diverse, and heavily tied to tourism and destination-style visitationespecially on the
Coast. Monthly adjusted gross gaming revenue reports in 2025 show the familiar regional pattern: the Coastal region produces the largest share, with
Northern and Central regions adding significant totals. (For context, Mississippi’s August 2025 statewide total was reported at roughly
$215.5 million in adjusted gross gaming revenue, with the Coastal region leading.)

That’s exactly why meetings like August 2025’s matter: licensing and regulatory updates aren’t theoretical. They shape who can operate, which vendors
can supply technology and equipment, what internal controls are required, and how the rules get enforcedmonth after month, during real revenue
cycles.

Example: Vendor Licensing Supports Modernization (Without Sacrificing Oversight)

The August 2025 approvals include companies tied to:

• casino equipment (slot and table-game ecosystem)
• payments and cash-access technology
• sports betting data and related services

These are areas where the industry is evolving quicklyespecially payments and sports-related services. The regulatory point isn’t to stop innovation;
it’s to make sure innovation happens inside a system that can be audited, monitored, and enforced.

Example: Operator Licensing Keeps Responsibility Clear

Operator approvals (like those for entities tied to well-known Mississippi properties) reinforce a simple compliance truth:
the regulator needs a clearly responsible legal entity. That entity is accountable for internal controls, reporting, surveillance
compliance, and keeping licensed operations aligned with state requirements.

Quick Glossary: The Terms People Pretend They Understand

Manufacturer/Distributor License

A license allowing a company to manufacture, distribute, or supply regulated gaming equipment, systems, or related items to Mississippi-licensed gaming
establishments (subject to the Commission’s rules and oversight).

Operator License

A license allowing an entity to operate a gaming establishment in Mississippimeaning it’s responsible for compliance, reporting, and the integrity of
operations.

Finding of Suitability

A Commission determination that an individual or entity associated with gaming operations is suitabletypically based on investigations and disclosures
related to character, financial background, and other integrity-related factors.

Holding Company Registration

A regulatory recognition that an upstream entity has control or significant influence over a licensed gaming entity, and therefore must be registered
and reviewed within the oversight framework.

Key Takeaways: What Readers Should Remember

• The August 21, 2025 meeting included approvals for multiple new licensesboth operator entities and manufacturer/distributor vendors.
• The Commission approved a sizable list of findings of suitability, reinforcing how seriously Mississippi treats “who’s behind the
  business.”
• Ownership and structure changesespecially holding-company registrations and equity transferswere part of the meeting, showing the Commission’s
  role in keeping corporate control transparent.
• The meeting included a major final adoption package of administrative code rules, reflecting a broad maintenance/update cycle in
  the regulatory framework.

Conclusion

The Mississippi Gaming Commission’s August 2025 meeting actions are a reminder that gaming regulation is both practical and deeply procedural. It’s
licenses, suitability findings, ownership transparency, and rulemakingover and overso the industry can function as a regulated market instead of an
anything-goes free-for-all.

For operators and vendors, these actions are not paperwork theater; they’re the legal permissions that unlock business operations. For the public,
they’re evidence that Mississippi continues to manage a high-revenue industry with oversight mechanisms designed to protect integrity, enforce rules,
and maintain confidence in licensed gaming.

Experiences: What It’s Like to Follow (or Work Around) a Meeting Like This

If you’ve never tried to track a gaming commission meeting, imagine binge-watching a courtroom dramaexcept the plot twist is a revised chapter number
and the cliffhanger is “final adoption of 46 rule changes.” Sounds thrilling, right? And yet, for the people who live in this world, meetings like the
Mississippi Gaming Commission’s August 2025 session can feel oddly electric, because a single vote can turn months of preparation into reality.

For vendors, the “experience” often starts long before anyone sits down at a dais. There are applications, disclosures, background checks, and
compliance reviews that can make a normal corporate onboarding process look like a casual handshake. People who work in regulated gaming sometimes
joke that you can tell a gaming supplier from a regular tech vendor by how quickly they say the words “we have the paperwork ready.” When your
business depends on a manufacturer/distributor license, you learn to treat documentation like oxygenbecause without it, you don’t breathe, you don’t
ship, and you definitely don’t install anything on a casino floor.

For casino operators and their compliance teams, commission meeting week can feel like finals season. Internal control updates, ownership changes,
and suitability matters aren’t just “submitted” and forgottenthey’re tracked, checked, rechecked, and packaged so cleanly that an auditor could eat
lunch off the binder. (Not that anyone should eat lunch off a binder. Ink is not a food group.) When a meeting agenda includes multiple suitability
findings and corporate registrations, you can almost picture the behind-the-scenes coordination: legal teams verifying entity names, finance teams
aligning ownership charts, compliance staff making sure every signature is where it needs to be, and someonealways someoneasking, “Do we have the
latest version of the exhibit?”

Then there’s the uniquely modern reality: today’s “gaming” ecosystem is packed with businesses that don’t look like classic casino suppliers. Sports
data services, digital payments tech, systems vendors, and interactive subsidiaries can all show up on a gaming agenda. If you work around the
industry, you get used to seeing brand names you associate with apps, kiosks, or data feeds suddenly appear in the same context as slot machines and
table equipment. That can be jarring for outsiders, but for regulators it’s simply the market catching up with technologywhile oversight catches up
with the market.

If you’re a journalist or an analyst following these meetings, the experience is half detective work, half translation. You read “holding company
registration” and you translate it into “the regulators want to know who’s in charge.” You read “transfer of equity interests” and you translate it
into “ownership is shifting, and the state is confirming it’s acceptable.” You read “final adoption of administrative code parts and chapters” and you
translate it into “the rulebook is being updatedbrace for compliance memos.” It’s not glamorous, but it’s meaningful. These meetings are where the
state draws the boundaries that define what is allowed, who is accountable, and how compliance is measured.

And if you’re just a regular person trying to understand what happened? The experience can be surprisingly reassuring. The agenda might be dense, and
the names might be long enough to win a spelling bee, but the underlying story is pretty clear: Mississippi is managing a major industry through
structured approvals, suitability checks, and rulemaking. That’s not flashy. It’s not supposed to be. In regulated gaming, the goal is that the public
never has to wonder whether the system is being watchedbecause the system is designed so that watching it is the job.