In Campione v. Adamar of N.J., 155 N.J. 245, 264, 714 A.2d 299 (1998), where the plaintiff claimed a casino discriminated against him for counting cards, 155 N.J. at 249, 714 A.2d 299, the Court held that there was a common-law cause of action for discrimination within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. Id. at 266, 714 A.2d 299. However, on the particular question of whether the Casino Control Commission's regulations "implicitly permitted casinos to apply a separate set of rules to card counters seated at the same table as other patrons," the Court directed the Law Division to remand to the Commission "so that the agency may interpret its own regulations," the "kind" of issue that is "especially suited" for primary jurisdiction. Ibid. The Campione v. Adamar of N.J., 155 N.J. 245, 264, 714 A.2d 299 (1998) Court explained this in the context of legalized gambling, an industry regulated as comprehensively as a public utility. The pervasiveness of the regulatory scheme controlling the casino industry indicates that the Legislature intended to invest the Casino Control Commission with primary jurisdiction to regulate the casino industry. To the extent that the resolution of a plaintiff's claim depends on an interpretation of the Act or administrative regulations, the CCC should have the first opportunity to provide that interpretation. A referral to the CCC should assure the resolution of the controversy consistent with the views of the entity best positioned to consider the matter. Retaining primary jurisdiction in the courts could dislocate the intricate regulatory structure governing a sensitive industry. Permitting courts and juries across the State to interpret statutory and administrative regulations could introduce confusion where uniformity is needed. The lack of uniform interpretations, in turn, could effect the stability of the industry.Campione, 155 N.J. at 264, 714 A.2d 299.