The Future of Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) and College and Professional Sports

Duane Morris LLP will present The Future of Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) and College and Professional Sports, featuring a keynote speech from Michael McCann, professor and founding director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute, Franklin Pierce School of Law, University of New Hampshire, on Thursday, April 25, 2024, from 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Eastern time. The program will take place at the firm’s Philadelphia office and the NFL draft reception at Misconduct Tavern, 1801 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19103. REGISTER FOR THE EVENT. Continue reading “The Future of Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) and College and Professional Sports”

Gambler Loses Bid To Pause Fliff’s New Arbitration Agreement

A California federal judge has denied the temporary restraining order of a man suing Fliff Inc. for allegedly offering online gambling disguised as free sweepstakes, saying the California resident failed to provide the court with evidence he would succeed on his underlying lawsuit claims of unfair competition and unjust enrichment. […]

Fliff attorney William Gantz of Duane Morris LLP told Law360 Friday that his client had followed the law.

“The law is very clear,” Gantz told Law360. “Online companies can change their terms of use.”

Gantz noted the original terms of use also required arbitration to resolve a dispute. The company filed a motion to compel arbitration on Aug. 11.

To read the full text of this article, please visit the Law360 website (subscription required).

Duane Morris’ Gilbert Brooks Recognized as Gaming “Lawyer of the Year” in Cherry Hill by Best Lawyers

Duane Morris partner Gilbert L. Brooks has been recognized by Best Lawyers® as the “2024 Gaming Lawyer of the Year” in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The recognition is given to only one attorney for each practice area and city. Lawyers are selected based on high marks received during peer-review assessments conducted by Best Lawyers each year.

Continue reading “Duane Morris’ Gilbert Brooks Recognized as Gaming “Lawyer of the Year” in Cherry Hill by Best Lawyers”

Frank DiGiacomo Discusses Trends in Sports Betting, and How It Intersects with the Professional Sports Industry

As team lead of Duane Morris’ Gaming Industry Group, Frank A. DiGiacomo brings a wealth of experience to the areas of gaming, sports betting, igaming, lottery, fantasy sports, entertainment, and regulatory law.

Not surprisingly, he has represented public and privately held casino operators, sports wagering operators, gaming/sports wagering technology providers engaged in interactive, skills-based gaming, social gaming, financial services companies, and lottery companies.

To read the full text of this interview, originally published by Sports Litigation Alert, please visit the publication website.

By the Way, Maryland’s General Assembly Also Passed Fantasy Competitions

Much has been written about the Maryland General Assembly’s April 12 passage of sports betting legislation that, upon signature of the governor, will authorize up to 60 mobile licenses and more than 40 retail licenses here. The fact that the same piece of legislation – House Bill 940 – will also legalize, regulate, and tax fantasy competitions seems to have gotten lost in all the excitement. Would-be fantasy operators should note the following features of the law.

HB 940 legalizes and expressly exempts fantasy competitions from criminal laws against betting, wagering and gambling. It is fair to glean from the carve-out from criminal law, the title of the act (“Regulation of Fantasy Gaming Competitions”), and the invitation to the Lottery and Gaming Control Commission to establish a voluntary exclusion list for fantasy players that the General Assembly considered fantasy competitions gambling.
Continue reading “By the Way, Maryland’s General Assembly Also Passed Fantasy Competitions”

New York Mobile Sports Betting Approved in Fiscal Year 2022 State Budget

New York Governor Cuomo and state legislative leaders have reached a tentative agreement on the Fiscal Year 2022 New York State budget paving a way for mobile sports betting in the Empire State.  here is a link to the Senate Bill 2509  .  The General Assembly must now vote to accept the budget and additional changes may be forthcoming.

In summary, the New York State Gaming Commission plans to issue a Request  or Proposal (“RFP”) by July 1, 2021, to select up to two providers to offer mobile sports wagering.  According to the April 6, 2021 revised Budget Bill, a “platform provider” is defined as “an entity selected by the [New York State Gaming Commission] to conduct mobile sports wagering pursuant to a competitive bidding process.”  The operators selected during in the RFP process would then be able to subcontract mobile betting contracts, also known as “skins”, to other providers.  The operators submitting proposals are required to house their mobile sports wagering platform provider server and other equipment with a licensed casino facility.  Based on existing publicly reported agreements and/or affiliations with upstate casinos,  FanDuel,  DraftKings, Bet365, and BetRivers may have such agreements in place.  However, as noted in the “platform provider” definition, any operator that has an agreement with an upstate casino is eligible, and therefore, already existing sportsbooks are not the only potential applicants.

The selected operators must offer at least four skins combined, but according to New York State Senator Joseph Addabo Jr. and chair of the State Assembly Racing and Wagering Committee, J. Gary Pretlow, there is no ceiling on the amount of skins available, but instead, what the “market can bear.”  The selected providers will pay a $25 million licensing fee and pursuant to a revenue-sharing agreement between New York and selected providers, New York is estimated to receive a minimum of 50% of gross gaming revenues.  Finally, the New York State Gaming Commission may select more providers if it determines additional licenses “are in the best interest of the state.”

Key Components

  • Two platform providers will be selected through a RFP process
  • “Platform Provider” is broadly defined in the law
  • The New York State Gaming Commission must issue a RFP no later than July 1, with a 30 day application window following the RFP
  • The New York State Gaming Commission has 150 days after the final application is received to select the providers
  • $25 million one-time licensing fee for each selected platform provider
  • Applicant must include its proposed skins in the application
  • Selected providers must combine for a minimum of four total skins
  • New York to receive a minimum of 50% of gross gaming revenue from the selected providers
  • Providers must have server located in land-based casino and will pay $5 million annually to the land-based casino to house the server, unless the provider is already affiliated with a land-based casino
  • No mandate on official league data, but there will be a preference for use of such data in the bidding process

Tribes, Racetracks, and OTBs Left Out of the Deal

Indian tribes located in New York were effectively left out of the bill besides a provision that rewards applicants additional points in the RFP selection process if they have a revenue sharing agreement with an Indian gaming operator.  The Onedia Indian Nation released a statement following the release of the agreement noting the mobile sports legislation would result in a breach of its ten-county gaming exclusivity zone and threatened to withhold $70 million in annual revenue sharing to the state as a result.  In addition, racetracks and off-track betting (“OTB”) locations were not included in the agreement, although previously proposed legislation would have allowed these operators to offer mobile betting.

If you have any questions about this please contact Frank A. DiGiacomo, Adam BergerJoseph F. Caputi, or any of the attorneys in our Gaming Industry Group.

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress