Daily Archives: April 7, 2020

The state of Illinois launched sports betting on March 9, after a sports betting bill was signed into law last June. There was plenty of controversy surrounding the law at the time, and it took the state an extremely long time to give out sports betting licenses.

The sports betting industry is currently shut down due to the coronavirus pandemic, but gambling controversy remains. This time the issue at stake is the amount of video gambling machines in certain suburbs and the city of Chicagos reluctance to allow them.

Rolling Meadows is a suburb of Chicago, and video gambling has been a controversial topic of late. Video gambling machines were deemed to be illegal until 2018 when a new law was passed that allowed businesses to offer video gambling.

Alderman Kevin OBrien is now proposing that the city of Rolling Meadows limit the number of gambling machines that are present, and also restrict where these gambling machines can be offered.

There are currently 10 businesses in Rolling Meadows that have video gambling machines, and two other locations have applied for a license to get them. Alderman OBrien believes that there are too many locations with gambling machines now, and he is hoping to get a law passed that will put a limit on the number.

His proposal would also limit strip malls to have just one business that has video gambling machines.

Video gambling was officially legalized in 2009, but many cities or towns chose to opt out at that time. Over the last few years, more cities have allowed video gambling machines as a way to raise revenue for certain projects.

In 2019, there were over 32,000 gambling terminals located throughout the state, and those machines brought in over $478 million in tax revenue. That money was split between state and local governments.

That number is expected to be even larger in 2020, but the coronavirus pandemic is keeping businesses from being open, which means that the machines are currently not in use.

The city of Chicago has a ban on video gambling terminals, and that is another point of contention between residents and lawmakers. Sweepstakes machines are legal in Chicago, and many businesses choose to offer them.

Sweepstakes machines offer coupons to patrons that win the games, and these coupons can be redeemed for cash or other prizes.

The 2019 expanded gambling laws in Illinois allowed for a large number of new gambling machines to be put in businesses in the state. Chicago has kept their ban, but they are now facing extreme pressure to change this law to help the financial situation in the Windy City.

One of the major reasons that Chicago is holding out is that they are planning to open up a huge casino in the city, and they dont want any competition from these gambling machines.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is in favor of a large casino coming to the city, and she predicts that the tax revenue would be over $1 billion each year. This casino could offer sports betting under the new laws in Illinois, but the problem is that Illinois also charges large fees to operate a casino or sportsbook in the state.

Chicago has yet to find any company willing to pay the operating costs or the taxes that would be imposed.

The entire casino industry in Illinois has been suffering over the past decade. Total revenue from the 10 casinos located in Illinois has declined for seven straight years, and video gambling machines play a role in that. If Chicago is unable to get a new casino built, then they will likely turn to offering video gambling machines.

See the original post here:

More Gambling Controversy in Illinois - USGamblingSites.com

The Wire Act still looms large over online gambling in the US.

The 1961 federal statute is the reason there arent yet any legal betting exchanges or other interstate options for punters. Its also the key reason US online gambling operators spend millions of dollars establishing new technology stacks in every available state.

Whether the Act applies to all forms of gambling (or only sports betting) is currently the subject of a court in the First Circuit. But even ignoring the potential broader ramifications, the antiquated law has already proven itself detrimental to the sectors growth.

So what are the chances of getting rid of the Wire Acts constraints entirely?

Florida State University sports law professor Ryan Rodenberg says Congress will more than likely take a look at the Wire Act in the next four years, via a draft bill or perhaps even a hearing.

As evidenced by the federal sports betting bill that was introduced in December 2018, there is some legislative interest in addressing potential Wire Act shortcomings, said Rodenberg. (You can read about that bill here.)

From the scope of the Wire Acts safe harbor to tech-specific issues such as routing of sports bets across states lines, there are certain aspects of the 1961 law that Congress could revise or repeal entirely.

There are, however, some who believe Congress has bigger fish to fry. The fight to be rid of Wire Act constraints might instead be fought with the Department of Justice and its appetite for enforcement.

James Trusty, an attorney with Ifrah Law, thinks Attorney General William Barr may be open to negotiations. Remember, last years attempt to expand the scope of the Wire Act was rushed through by Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker while Barr was undergoing confirmation.

Barr is much more of a federalist and a believer in letting states be the primary decision maker on things like this, said Trusty. He served as the chief of the DOJ Organized Crime and Gang Section back in 2011 when the DOJ published its previous Wire Act guidance.

Trusty says an elegant solution for the DOJ would be to avoid litigation against lotteries and instead clarify that the Wire Act should only apply when addressing organized crime, rather than state-regulated activities like legal sports betting or online poker.

Theres too much uncertainty about Barrs stance to consider that a sure bet, though.

In the meantime, state lotteries and their supporters are confident that the Wire Acts scope will remain limited to sports betting by trial if necessary. Ifrah Law represents the iDevelopment & Economic Association (iDEA) as amicus curiae in the New Hampshire Lottery case.

Whether the industry can get the Wire Act rolled back even further and truly take the shackles off the US sports betting industry remains a somewhat murkier proposition.

Originally posted here:

Will US Online Gambling Ever Be Free From The Wire Act? - OnlinePokerReport.com

While coronavirus is changing our world in so many ways, if we are able to continue fundraising, we must remain conscious of regulatory frameworks and be sure to comply with any changes that can affect our programmes now and into the future.The Gambling Commissions upcoming ban on the use of credit cards for all forms of remote gambling, and for non-remote betting, has raised a number of queries from the not-for-profit sector as to how it will affect society lotteries.

The ban comes into effect on 14 April and aims to help prevent individuals from racking up debts on their credit cards, particularly when gambling online.

When the ban takes effect, lottery operators with remote society lottery licences, remote ancillary lottery licences, and remote ELM licences will no longer be able to accept payments by credit card by remote methods, which, under the Gambling Commissions definition of remote, includes those made online (such as by a website or app), over the telephone, by email, text message, and fax.

Face-to-face lottery payments by credit card on premises, or door-to-door, will still be allowed (albeit only when F2F fundraising can resume after coronavirus social distancing restrictions are relaxed). So too, sending card details by post is allowed, as this is also classed as a non-remote method of payment by the Gambling Commission.

It means charities will still be able to accept credit card payments for their lotteries, provided they are taken in these ways.

The proviso is that precautions are put in place to help protect people from harm.

The Gambling Commissions existing licence conditions and codes of practice already include a specific requirement on lotteries to set an upper limit on the value of lottery tickets which may be sold to an individual, whether during a single transaction or over a period of time and irrespective of payment method, without interaction with the individual. So, lotteries will need to set a threshold of ticket sales and ensure they interact with customers before selling them a quantity of tickets over that.

According to the Gambling Commission, this interaction requires the lottery operator to identify whether the purchasing individual may be at risk of, or experiencing, gambling-related harm. The operator also needs to keep a record of these interactions available for inspection, and the Commission can monitor the performance of lotteries through routine compliance assessments, or in response to specific complaints.

But is this enough? Or is there more that could be done to safeguard good cause lottery players?

One question raised is whether it is in fact ethical for not-for-profit organisations to continue using credit cards for lotteries, even with protections in place.

We put this to Ian MacQuillin, director of fundraising think tank Rogare. He believes that there is no ethical reason why they should not continue to use credit cards for cases where credit cards are legally allowed, but that good causes may wish to look at whether it is possible to set the bar higher than legally required:

If it is considered acceptable for offline commercial lotteries to be paid for on credit cards then it has to be acceptable for charity lotteries to be paid for in the same way. But even if law and regulation do provide clear guidance, it is also a question for professional ethics whether to go beyond the law, which sets a lower benchmark and doesnt stop you setting the bar higher.

For anyone wanting more guidance on ethical decision-making, he points people to Rogares framework on this topic.

To better protect players and help mitigate the risk of debt, an alternative is to move away from using credit card payments altogether. Debit card payments for single lottery plays and Direct Debits for regular play payments are both familiar and easy payment mechanisms for the playing supporter, as well as being a lot safer when it comes to protecting against debt and fraud.

While of course its possible to go overdrawn and incur charges with a current account, its not possible to run up the high levels of debt seen with credit cards. Money is withdrawn directly from the players bank account, so if there are insufficient funds in their account, the payment for the lottery play is simply not taken. And if your charity currently operates a lottery where a lump sum is taken from credit cards for a series of lottery plays, you can do the same from debit cards.

Additionally, Direct Debit is the safest payment method for making recurring payments thanks to the Direct Debit Guarantee, Charities are protected by the efficiency and security of the scheme, while for the player, the Guarantee protects the account owner from payments that may be made in error or indeed fraudulently against their account.

As with any activity, risks must always be assessed. Given their low frequency format and the typical prize thresholds, charity lotteries are less likely to attract addictive gambling behaviour. But it is wise to proactively carrying out a risk assessment to help both identify any potential problem areas and find solutions.

Whether charities should be accepting credit card payments for lotteries is an interesting area of debate, and as with all ethical issues, there is no simple right or wrong answer. While the law must of course be followed in regard to credit card payments, its up to each charity to determine which and how many payment methods it will accept instead. Making Debit card and Direct Debit payments your methods of choice goes a long way to ensuring that all possible steps are taken to safeguard the wellbeing of everyone involved.

Jackie Lawrence, Head of Marketing, Rapidata (an Access Company)

More:

Charity lotteries: navigating the Gambling Commissions credit card ban - UK Fundraising