title: Washington — Technical compliance: What must the platform meet? | advennt.io canonical: https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/washington/technical/ [Jurisdictions](https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/) [Washington](https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/washington/) Technical compliance Washington · Question 08 of 11 # Technical compliance: What must the platform meet? Mixed · Probable · AI-generated · [Back to full Washington report →](https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/washington/) Key section parameters | Jurisdiction | Washington (US-WA) | |---|---| | Regulator | Recorded in register | | Favourability | Mixed | | Confidence | Probable | | Review status | AI-generated | | Last collected | 18 Oct 2026 | Summary answer The Washington State Gambling Commission's April 2026 rulemaking packet raised the house-banked card-room PTZ-camera prize-surveillance threshold from $3,000 to $5,000, easing the technical surveillance-compliance burden for the non-tribal card-room segment. This is regulator rulemaking, not statute… ## Full section analysis The Washington State Gambling Commission's April 2026 rulemaking packet raised the house-banked card-room PTZ-camera prize-surveillance threshold from $3,000 to $5,000, easing the technical surveillance-compliance burden for the non-tribal card-room segment. This is regulator rulemaking, not statute, and therefore fragile: it is revocable by a successor Commission action at any time. Commission staff reasoning, as recorded in the packet, was that the higher threshold would not diminish the ability for dispute resolution. No technical-compliance evidence surfaced this cycle regarding the newly authorized tribal collegiate sports-wagering product itself.