The settlement was approved by the control board in May 2004, but was rejected by the Nevada Gaming Commission later that month. The commission felt that the settlement was too vague and that it would set a new and unhelpful precedent throughout the gaming industry on how to handle advertising. Some commissioners also questioned the earlier assertion by the control board that one of the ads promoted casino cheating, stating that no reasonable person would perceive the ad in such a way. Lichtenstein also stated that "the intent of the ad was quite obvious. No reasonable person could assume otherwise. That someone (unreasonably) construed the words to suggest illegality doesn't make the ad illegal." The models featured in the advertisements stated that the ads were not meant to encourage illegal activity, and that the content of the ads had an obvious meaning despite the accusations by the control board. One commissioner concluded that Siller had threatened the Hard Rock when he said, earlier that month, that he would seek disciplinary action against the resort's gaming license if future ad violations occurred. Siller denied claims from critics who said that he was biased against the Hard Rock, saying that he was only performing his job duties.
