Tag: Legislation

Operators in the Crosshairs as New Austrian Regulations Loom

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Ministry of Finance in Austria is in the process of scrutinizing the Gambling Act in the country in a bid to introduce some new amendments that will certainly have a huge impact on the country’s local online gambling market. To be more specific, the revised Gambling Act would potentially ban all the foreign gambling operators and even go as far as requesting that the operators to refund the players for all the losses they have accrued at the said casinos for the past 30 or so years.

This Ban Is Not the Solution

Perhaps one of the most notable aspects of the revised Gambling Act is the proposition that the all the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the country should ban the IP addresses belonging to all the gambling operators that are currently operating different online gambling business to Austrian gamblers. Just like in Germany, all of these online gambling sites are not sanctioned by the state and it is, therefore, safe to say that they are operating in a grey area. As such, all those that have stopped or are planning to stop marketing their services and products in Austria are to be blocked.

This does not sit well with quite a number of people. Without reading too much into the situation, it is quite clear that the ban will effectively create a monopoly which will favour Casino Austria, which, as it turns out, is the only site that is licensed in Austria – Casino Austria is also partially owned by the Austrian government. Experts and avid followers of the casino industry believe that the move to ban other reputable operators will have negative effects on the industry and ultimately drive the gamblers to unregulated and unlicensed sites.

Even though it is rather obvious that the IP ban will go against the spirit of freedom for service provision in the European Union, the Austrian ministry of finance is hell-bent on seeing it through. This resulted in an idea that the ministry hoped would keep unlicensed foreign operators away and prevent them from trying to find a workaround to bypass the ban.

To be more precise, the ministry proposed that all contracts between players from Austria and unlicensed operators over the past three decades should be considered to be null and void. The operators would, therefore, have to return all player loses since the period stipulated by the proposed plan. Still, the legality and enforceability of this law are still highly questionable, the Austrian Ministry of Finance hopes that the threat alone will serve to keep foreign and unlicensed operators at bay.

There are a number of companies that are already getting ready to fight for their rights using all the legal resources they have. All of these operators have no issue paying their dues but they are not willing to allow the country’s authority take advantage of their power in order to create a monopoly something that even the European Union itself will not accept as well.

U.S. Senator Demands Government Oversight over Loot Boxes

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Many gambling addiction experts, psychologists and state lawmakers in the United States are of the opinion that loot boxes are essentially a form of gambling hiding in plain sight and targeting minors. Loot boxes refer to the random assortments of prizes purchased by video game players who hope to acquire certain desired – and virtual – powers. This can be likened to the way people play at slot machines with the hope of hitting the jackpot. It is perhaps because such a comparison can be drawn that various experts are calling for government oversight as far as loot boxes are concerned.

It, therefore, did not come as a surprise when New Hampshire Democrat, Senator Maggie Hassan, made the first move towards the proposed loot box initiative in the U.S. It begun with a letter that she wrote to Patricia Vance, the president of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board which is responsible for designing the warning labels for parents and guardians on video game products. In the letter, Senator Hassan asked Vance to not only consider having a warning on product packages pertaining to the presence of loot boxes in the video games but also to have an in-depth look at the practice.

Senator Hassan further took up the issue with four nominees to the Federal Trade Commission during a hearing at the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

“In the past, the FTC has looked at video games, specifically the impact of violence in games,” Hassan pointed out during the hearing. “Do you agree that children being addicted to gaming and activities like loot boxes that might make them more susceptible to addiction is a problem that merits our attention? And depending on how the ESRB responds to my inquiry, would the FTC be willing to look at loot boxes as an issue independently?”

All the Four Trade Commission nominees agreed to look into the possibility of examining federal oversight of loot boxes. This move has been hailed as a highly ethical and considerate one, especially by the gambling addiction community who have always considered loot boxes in video games to be dangerous predatory forms of gambling that target minors.

Here Is Why It Might Actually Go Through

Loot boxes came under the spotlight last holiday as a result of consumer outrage caused by Electronic Arts’ Star Wars Battlefront II players who complained about the way people who bought loot boxes had an upper edge over other gamers. The player backlash had such a huge impact on the sales and that it led the company to a damage control mode that saw it temporarily disable the loot box purchases.

However, both the ESRB and Electronic Arts have maintained that loot boxes cannot be likened to gambling since people who purchase them are not left empty-handed unlike in gambling where players are even given prizes that they are not interested in. Meanwhile, lawmakers in Hawaii have already begun to move legislation that will impact the way loot boxes are used. One of these legislations, if passed, will restrict the sale of video games with loot boxes only to person above the age of 21 and the other intends to make it necessary for special labeling to be included on the games that offer loot boxes.

Adam Silver Just Made a Mess of the Leagues’ Talking Points

Reading Time: 2 minutes

On Saturday, NBA commissioner Adam Silver cited the extraordinary value of the league’s intellectual property in an argument meant to justify the controversial royalty that the NBA and other professional sports leagues have been asking for in case the Supreme Court legalizes sports betting countrywide. In what was his first public comment following the NBA’s move to outline a model framework for a legal sports betting marketplace back on January 24th, Mr. Silver said that the league should be compensated. The reason he gave was that the league would be incurring more expenses in case the law that prohibits professional sports betting is reversed.

At the New York Senate hearing on January 24th, the league, through Adam Silver, proposed the so-called 1 percent integrity fee for gaming operators from the total handle of all the wagers on the games in states where sports betting is already legalized or will be legalized in the future.

“I would only say from the NBA’s standpoint we will spend this year roughly $7.5 billion creating this content, creating these games,” Silver said at an NBA All-Star Weekend press conference. “Those are total expenses for the season. So this notion that as the intellectual property creators that we should receive a 1% fee seems very fair to me.”

The leagues and their lobbyists have been insisting that the fee is correlated with monitoring that is associated with sports betting. They have further pointed out that the proposed integrity fee will be used for ensuring game integrity due to the “increased expenses” that are part and parcel of sports betting markets. However, the proposed integrity fee does not, in any way, put any strings on how the leagues will need to use it.

Not Many Are Buying the Idea

NBA’s proposal has been met with lots of resistance especially from major international sports books and gambling trading industry trade groups who see the fee as a levy of some sort and this, according to them, will have a negative impact on their operations. Case in point, for a Nevada sportsbook that pays top state taxes amounting to 6.75 percent of its gross sports gambling revenues along with the 0.25 percent federal excise tax, the amount that the professional sports leagues will get out of the sportsbook’s annual revenue lies between 15 percent to 20 percent.

Ohio Lawmaker Gets Involved

NBA’s request is attracting a lot of attention and now an Ohio lawmaker has gotten into it. The lawmaker hopes that the Legislature does not give in to the demands to share potential sports wagering revenue with the leagues.

“I think the 1 percent integrity fee is an absolute joke,” said Fluharty, lead sponsor of the House legislation. “Nevada doesn’t even pay them. I can’t help but see the irony that MLB won’t let Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame because he bet on sports, yet now the league wants to make money on sports betting.”

Iowa Sports Betting Bill Facing Opposition from NBA and MLB

Reading Time: 2 minutes

As it turns out, the state of Iowa has been preparing a House bill that is aimed at legalizing sports betting in case the U.S. Supreme Court lifts the nationwide ban on sportsbetting, but the Major League Baseball (MLB) and the National Basketball League are not too happy about it. Both leagues have officially registered an opposing bill against the Iowa House bill.

However, it is more complicated than it seems – the leagues are not actually opposed to the state’s bid to legalize sports betting, per se. Apparently, the real problem is a provision of the bill that points to a proposed “integrity fee.” The integrity does not guarantee the leagues a piece of the profits that will be amassed from sports betting once it is legalized. According to the Iowa Gaming Association, while the leagues are not being forward about it, NBA and MLB are essentially demanding for major league sports fees.

Members of the Iowa casino industry have unanimously pointed out that the fees that the leagues are demanding is not only unrealistic but will also make sportsbooks unprofitable in the long run.

“It would kill sports betting in any state,” said Iowa Gaming Association president, Wes Ehrecke in an interview with a news outlet.

“It is unfortunate there wouldn’t be a good partnership with all the leagues because they will benefit from people watching games and betting on games,” Ehrecke told the news outlet. “But there certainly doesn’t need to be an integrity fee.”

Ehrecke further pointed out that in case the leagues are allowed to have the 1 percent fee that they are asking for, they would be walking away with about 20 percent or more of what is left after pot money is paid out. In addition to this, he also based his reasoning on the fact that 95 percent of the money wagered would be returned to the gamblers, and the remaining 5 percent is divided among the state, overhead expenses, federal taxes and a small share of the profits for the casinos and community groups.

Iowa’s sports gambling legislation is scheduled for consideration today (Wednesday, 7th )and if passed will establish a framework to legalize sports betting on college and professional sports which would then be regulated by the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission.

Kentucky Among States Seeking Sports Betting Legalization

Reading Time: 2 minutes

There is a lot of optimism as far as sports betting is concerned and a number of states are preparing for the landmark ruling that will hopefully repeal the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). Kentucky is the eighth state where sports betting could become a reality if PASPA is repealed and bill SB 22 that was submitted on Wednesday by Senator Julian Carroll gains enough political support. The bill seeks to amend a Kentucky statute that exempts some sports from the current sports betting ban in the state. This bill further seeks to award the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission oversight authority to implement new sports betting regulations. It will also channel all tax revenues generated from the activity to the state coffers.

This is Caroll’s second attempt at pushing a bill that will potentially put Kentucky on the map in regards to sports betting. His first attempt was in September last year when he filed bill BR 155 that sought for the conceptualization and implementation of a sensible framework for legalized sports betting at the Kentucky racetracks and the off-track betting facilities. Unfortunately, the bill flopped before the end of 2017 but the senator maintained that sports betting is a viable solution to Kentucky’s budget problem.

“When the (state financial advisors) PFM Group made their recommendations to cut pensions it was my mission to find a new source of revenue for the ailing systems,” Carroll said in an interview with the Legislative Research Commission in September. “The state has a moral and legal obligation to fund state pensions. Reducing the benefits of thousands of hard-working public servants is not an option.”

Caroll has been rather open about his motivation for the legislative push – he has reaffirmed that the tax revenue from sports betting would be used to support pension schemes as well as facilitating the provision of other civil services. Under the new bill’s terms, gaming operators would need to pay an initial licensing fee of $250,000 and an additional 20 percent tax on gross gaming revenues – from all the funds that will be collected in this way, 60 percent will be allocated to the Kentucky Employees Retirement Systems Non-Hazardous and Kentucky Teachers’ retirement funds.

Indiana to Join States Seeking Sports Betting Legalization

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Indiana is set to be among the over dozen other states that have been preparing for significant changes in federal law pertaining to sports betting. At the moment, the United States Supreme Court is weighing arguments on whether or not to abolish 1992’s Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act that will imply nationwide legalization of sports betting. A number of the states that are already preparing for this are quite optimistic that the Supreme Court will make a decision that upholds their wishes before the third quarter of 2018.

Indiana’s entry into the list was marked by a legislation that is going to be filed this session by a Republican lawmaker. This is, however, not Indiana’s first shot at fighting for sports betting – the state’s first attempt in 2015 did not bear any fruit but with New Jersey’s petition for the abolishment of PASPA being picked up by the Supreme Court everything has changed in their favor. Should PASPA be revoked, a number of states will have already legalized sports betting or will be in the process of finalizing the legislation – these include California, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, New York and Michigan.

Congress Might Act on Sports Betting

According to NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, the US Congress has shown a lot of interest in the topic of sports betting as well as NBA’s demands for a federal framework for it. Three years ago, Silver endorsed the lifting of the ban that imposed certain regulation and technological safeguards. His reasoning was that this would keep bettors from resorting to illicit bookmaking and shady offshore betting sites.

This seems like a longshot since it essentially implies diverting attention to what would represent a large expansion of gaming at the federal level which has not been possible for very many years. Regardless, there have been several efforts made towards it including calls for hearings on an active legislation by Rep. Frank Pallone that seeks to repeal the federal ban and leave sports betting to the states.

Thailand Ends Year with Push for Cryptocurrency Education

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The last week of 2017 has been abuzz with activity especially in the world of crypto. Amidst bitcoin’s crazy price fluctuations as well as the launch of several ICO’s, Thailand also made headlines when the country’s government announced that its major regulators would be teaming up in a bid to educate the people about bitcoin. While this is primarily motivated by their not so subtle worry and speculation of the possibility that bitcoin could be a Ponzi scheme, it is quite clear that the project will go a long way in helping people not to drown in the bitcoin frenzy. At the moment, bitcoin is not a legal tender in Thailand and its central bank issued reminders on the same – however, it should get better soon considering the tremendous efforts that Thailand has been putting into grappling with financial technology through various regulations.

Thailand is among the world’s top twenty economies, an achievement that was made possible by the outstanding GDP it quietly racked up over the years. The country is well on its way to becoming the fintech hub of its region – in fact, this is an official government policy. In the fall, its Securities and Exchange Commission sought out public guidance to assist their efforts to manage initial coin offerings. While this might seem like a move that seeks to choke out innovation, the true intention was to protect Thai citizens from the myriad of scams that have flooded the internet ever since the onset of the cryptocurrency hysteria.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha reportedly wants to “educate people about the risks of bitcoin investment after the recent sharp surge in bitcoin’s trading value prompted him to worry that Thais would fall victim to cryptocurrency speculation.” Somchai Sujjapongse, a representative of Thailand’s Finance Ministry will see to this by joining forces with other authorities to educate people about bitcoin. Thais are quite eager to participate in the booming Bitcoin business as indicated by exchange volumes in the country that are at par with global trends.

According to Thai media, “There are 37 bitcoin brokers in Thailand registered on LocalBitcoins, some with more than 1,000 bitcoins in assets. Prices for bitcoin are about 13% higher in Thailand than in the US, a sign of high demand for this cryptocurrency.”

Still, we will just have to wait and see how this goes in 2018. Happy new year!

Texas: Sports Betting Still a Long Shot Even If Ban Lifts

Reading Time: 2 minutes

There has been a lot of buzz pertaining to the legalization of sports betting in the United States but Texans are unlikely to reap any benefits from the much-awaited lift of the federal ban. So, if you are a resident of Texas and you were looking forward to plunking down some Super Bowl or Final Four wagers with legal bookies within your Texan locality in the near future, you might have to put your dreams on hold.

Even though the federal ban could be overturned by the United States Supreme Court as early as spring, observers are convinced that it will be very unlikely that Texas’ Governor Greg Abbott or the state’s legislature will take the opportunity to support the legalization of sports betting in the state – this is even after putting into consideration the huge economic impact that it would bring. To elaborate on this, financial experts estimate that a legal and regulated sports gambling market in Texas has the potential of boosting its economy by about $1.7 billion annually while at the same time creating over 9,300 jobs.

Critics of the bill argue that the legalization of sports gambling through the abolishment of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act will come with some inevitable negatives. These include the need for more social services such as counseling for people who will eventually develop gambling-related problems. Also, there will be the need for more government bureaucracy to oversee and regulate the gambling industry.

“The biggest base of opposition (to the expansion of legal gambling in Texas) is a moral one and comes from political conservatives — and they are a powerful constituency in the state right now,” said Jim Henson, the director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas. “So you have to look at the chances being pretty slim at this point.”

Currently, Texas has very strict anti-gambling laws that only allow for legal gambling in the state’s lottery. These laws further limit legal gambling in the state to some pari-mutuel wagering on horse and dog racing as well as social gambling such as charity bingo. Texas legislators have not been very welcoming to the idea of expanding these existing forms of gambling that they already have control of.

“I think a pretty good chunk of the (Texas) Senate and the House would be against legalized betting on sporting events,” said JoAnn Fleming, executive director of Grassroots America-We the People, a tea party-aligned organization that is usually perceived to be pulling the strings of conservative Texas lawmakers. “It would face an uphill battle.”

Mississippi Optimistic About Legalization of Sports Betting

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Of all the petitions in the United States Supreme court at the moment, the one involving the legalization of sports betting seems to be commanding a lot of attention especially among various stakeholders on both opposing and supporting sides. As it stands, legal experts, attorneys as well as states’ rights activists are very optimistic about the possibility that the Supreme Court will abolish the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 that effectively forbade sports betting in all the states save for Nevada.

On December 4th, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether sports betting should be legalized at New Jersey racetracks and casinos, and, Mississippi is one of the five states that officially backed New Jersey’s effort. In case the Supreme Court rules in favor of New Jersey Mississippi’s state officials and gaming operators are already prepared to offer sports betting services from the word go.

“Should the Supreme Court issue a favorable ruling, the Mississippi Gaming Commission will be ready to address sports gambling,” Allen Godfrey, executive director of the commission said. “The time would be determined more by how long it takes the operators to get ready to offer it as a regulated game.”

The ruling which is expected to come in the spring is already causing quite a stir in legal circles. While it is very difficult to accurately predict the outcome of the Supreme Court hearings, many court analysts have expressed their confidence in the ruling falling in favor of New Jersey.

State lawmakers in Mississippi have already tweaked the state’s laws pertaining to sports betting so as to create an opening for immediate implementation once a favorable ruling is made. In case this comes to pass, it will be the second big change in the state’s law after House Bill 967 that was passed by the Legislature in the 2017 session. Apparently, House Bill 967 holds the magic key to the immediate implementation of sports betting – the lawmakers managed to slip in some language that would effectively legalize sports betting in Mississippi once the ban is lifted. The lawmakers and legislative leaders, however, denied having prior knowledge of the loophole that they created when passing the fantasy sports gaming law.

“We did not see (House Bill 967) in the same light as sports betting. We knew there was a federal law that prohibited sports betting but allowed fantasy sports gaming,” Senator Sean Tindell said. “We weren’t concerned with sports betting then because we knew federal law would trump anything we could pass.”

A lot of people have been watching the Supreme Court case very closely and the results will have rather broad implications according to Jonathan Wood, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, a Washington-based legal firm.

“If New Jersey wins, it means states have a lot of power to experiment on a lot of issues. If the leagues win, the federal government would effectively be telling states what laws their voters can or can’t pass,” he pointed out.

Pennsylvanian Municipalities Act to Prohibit Casinos

Reading Time: 2 minutes

A recently passed legislation in Pennsylvania paves the way for the expansion of the state’s gambling by allowing up to 10 new casinos to be established within its jurisdiction. However, this endeavor has not been welcomed by some of Pennsylvania’s municipalities in the Centre County who are not for the idea of having a casino business operating in the area.

Just a couple of months ago on October 30th, Democrat Governor Tom Wolf signed House Bill 271 into law – the law which backed by the concurring General Assembly authorized gambling expansion opportunities in every part of Pennsylvania. This expansion would, for instance, create up to 10 category 4 slot machine licenses in addition to Pennsylvania’s 12 currently operational commercial casinos. About 300 to 700 slot machines and 50 table games can be operated by each of the Category 4 casinos though, according to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, none of these casinos can be operated within 25 miles of the state’s existing Category 1, 2 or 3 casinos. The only exception would be in the case of an operator opening a category 4 casino that is within 25 linear miles of its own Category 1, 2 or 3 facility.

As it stands, the municipalities have the power to either prohibit or even opt out of a casino that is located within its borders. To do this, the municipality’s governing body is required to send a resolution to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board before the 1st of January. A number of Centre County municipalities have already sent resolutions to prohibit the establishment of a casino.

The move by the municipalities is mostly driven by the long-term implications of gambling – the town’s residents believe that the casino would be a bad idea since most of the money that will be gambled and eventually lost will come from the town’s ordinary occupants. On the same note, they also did not see any benefits coming to the town as the mini-casinos would not be offering any ‘high-profile’ jobs to the county’s residents.

Any municipality that prohibits the location of a casino within its borders is allowed to revoke the prohibition, according to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board – however, upon revoking the prohibition, the municipality loses the right to prohibit the location of the casino again.