During the first few months of the COVID-19 lockdown, with virtually all major sporting events cancelled, sports betting and gambling companies turned their eyes toward the esports universe in search of a solution. While initially large scale esports events were also cancelled, professional gaming competitions soon began taking place online. As one of the only professional “sports” competitions being broadcasted with any consistency, esports competitions filled the gap for many sportsbook operators.
Continue Reading The Rise of Esports Betting

The allegations of gambling issues with games continues. Last week, a class action lawsuit was filed against  Apple relating to games in its App Store that include loot boxes. The complaint alleges that sale of such games are predatory practices enticing consumers, including children, to engage in gambling and similar addictive conduct in violation of California law. The suit alleges that loot boxes are like Vegas-style slot machines and allegedly constitute illegal slot machines when played on an iPhone or similar device.
Continue Reading Players Sue Apple Over Loot Boxes

Iowa enacted a sports betting law last May. Section 99E addressed fantasy sports contests and Section 99F addressed sports betting.

Under Section 99E: a “Fantasy sports contest” includes any fantasy or simulated game or contest …” and 99E.2 states: “The system of entering an internet fantasy sports contest as provided by this chapter is legal when conducted by a licensed internet fantasy sports contest service provider as provided in this chapter.”
Continue Reading Is Esports Betting Sports Betting in Iowa?

The Washington State Federal District Court recently issued a decision stating: “Washington’s definition of ‘gambling’ only reaches ‘staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person’s control or influence’ and that “[m]ost games not derived from casinos involve some amount of skill and would thus be unlikely to meet the statutory definition.”
Continue Reading Most Non-casino Style Games Unlikely to be Gambling in Washington

In a controversial decision, the Illinois Supreme Court determined that a head-to-head, daily fantasy sports (DFS) contest was predominately skill based and thus not gambling. Despite agreeing with the appellate court’s conclusion that the DFS contest at issue was not gambling, the Court disagreed with much of the appellate court’s reasoning.
Continue Reading Daily Fantasy Sports Case Skillfully Comes to a Head

In a closely watched case, a New Hampshire federal court has ruled that the Wire Act is limited to sports betting and set aside the DOJ’s recent opinion to the contrary. However, it limited the scope of its declaratory relief to the parties and deferred a decision on whether to extend the declaratory judgment to non-parties on behalf of the Lottery Commission, but gave the Lottery Commission 14 days to file an appropriate motion and supplement the record with adequate factual and legal support on that point.
Continue Reading Federal Court “Discards” DOJ Interpretation Of Wire Act

In an effort to side-step the lawsuit filed against it by the New Hampshire Lottery (and others), the Department of Justice (DOJ) asserts that its recent reinterpretation of the Wire Act doesn’t apply to lotteries. As we previously reported, the New Hampshire Lottery has sued the DOJ to prevent enforcement of the DOJ’s opinion (issued in January 2019) reinterpreting the Wire Act. As we also reported, the January 2019 DOJ opinion reversed the position it took in 2011 that the entirety of the Wire Act is limited to sports betting. The new opinion concluded that only one of four parts of the Wire Act apply to sports betting, while the other three apply to any online betting.
Continue Reading DOJ Asserts Wire Act Opinion Doesn’t Cover Lotteries

As we have previously reported, as loot boxes have become increasingly popular in high-profile video games, they have come under greater legal scrutiny. Several jurisdictions have indicated they are not illegal gambling, but other jurisdictions have found some implementations to be illegal gambling. Even in the jurisdictions where loot boxes are not deemed gambling, regulators have raised concerns about whether loot boxes raise other issues. One alleged concern is the potential impact on children and the potentially addictive nature of loot boxes, though little, if any, hard evidence to date supports this.
Continue Reading Unpacking Recent Loot Box Updates

It didn’t take long. The New Hampshire Lottery has sued the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prevent enforcement of the DOJ’s opinion (issued last month) reinterpreting the Wire Act. As we reported last month, the DOJ reversed the position it took in 2011 that the entirety of the Wire Act is limited to sports betting. It newly concludes that only one of four parts of the Wire Act apply to sports betting, while the other three apply to any online betting.
Continue Reading DOJ Sued Over its Reinterpretation of the Wire Act

The recently released Department of Justice (“DOJ”) opinion (“DOJ Opinion”) concluding that the Wire Act prohibits both sports and non-sports related Internet betting and wagering, leaves the industry with the burning question of “what about intrastate Internet gambling?”  On its face, the Wire Act prohibits using a wire communication facility for the transmission in “interstate or foreign commerce” of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of such wagers, for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers.  In its analysis the DOJ Opinion applies the modifier of interstate or foreign commerce to all four prohibited types of transmissions.
Continue Reading DOJ Opinion Leaves Industry Hanging: If UIGEA Exclusions Don’t Modify the Wire Act What Does That Mean for Intrastate Gambling Transactions?

This is a follow up to our recent blog post regarding the DOJ Opinion on its interpretation of the Wire Act. In a memo dated January 15, 2019, the Deputy Attorney General declared:

Department of Justice attorneys should adhere to the Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC) interpretation, which represents the Department’s position on the meaning of the Wire Act. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.25.
Continue Reading DOJ Wire Act Update – 90 Day Window for Compliance