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.

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.

Virginia Legislature Passes Bills to Expand Gambling in the Commonwealth

Legalized casino gambling and sports wagering are approaching the finish line in Virginia following the recent passage of two bills by the Virginia General Assembly. Senate Bill 36 and House Bill 896, both awaiting the signature of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, would permit five land-based casinos, online sports betting and up to 2,000 additional historical horse racing machines.

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

Poker Or Slots? Games Of Skill And Chance Have Legal Distinctions In Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania State Police seized 414 illegal gaming machines in southwestern Pennsylvania in 2018.

Currently, people can gamble at state-regulated casinos, through the Pennsylvania Lottery, for horse races and, after the expansion of the law last year, online and at some truck stops. But the changes didn’t include gaming machines in bars and restaurants. In those venues, if a game is mostly chance, like a slot machine, it’s illegal. But if it requires skill, like poker, it’s legal.

Frank DiGiacomopartner with the Duane Morris law firm, said the distinction comes from a 2014 court case out of Beaver County.

To read the full text of this article, please visit the WESA 90.5 website.

Dept. of Justice Reconsiders Its View on the Wire Act… So What Happens Now?

On January 14, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice published a legal opinion that may restrict online gambling. The opinion, dated November 2, 2018, (although only now published) reconsidered the DOJ’s 2011 opinion that declared the Wire Act (18 U.S.C. § 1084) only applied to sports gambling. After the release of the 2011 opinion, several states, including New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania, launched or moved forward with intrastate online lottery, casino gaming and poker. The new opinion, however, somewhat clouds the landscape regarding these operations. Online gaming businesses would be well advised to quickly determine whether their operations comply with the DOJ’s new reading.

The reconsideration stems from one phrase in the Wire Act: “on any sporting event or contest.” In 2011, the DOJ opined that the Wire Act was ambiguous and “that the more logical result” was that the phrase “on any sporting event or contest” applied to the entirety of the Wire Act, thereby prohibiting only the transmission of “bets or wagers” or “information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers” across state lines, if the bet or wager were on a sporting event. This logic follows in part from the Act’s legislative history, which reveals that Congress’ overriding goal in passing the Wire Act was to stop the use of wire communications by organized crime for illegal sports gambling. In 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Murphy v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n—a decision that paved the way for states to authorize sports betting, in dicta—noted Congress’ original intent in characterizing a general federal approach to gambling: Operating a gambling business violates federal law only if that conduct is illegal under state or local law.

Read the full Duane Morris Alert.

Pennsylvania Assembly Passes Sweeping Expansion of Gambling

On June 22, 2016 the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed a sweeping expansion of gambling .   The bill, which must be passed by the state’s Senate and signed by the Governor, would allow for internet based gambling, daily fantasy sports, slot machines at off-track betting parlors (“OTBs”), slot machines at airports and even paves the way for legalized sports betting, if, and when that is allowed under federal law.

Internet Gambling

  • Pennsylvania would be the fourth state to allow legal internet gambling (Internet gambling is currently legal in New Jersey, Delaware and Nevada);
  • Internet gambling would be offered through the Commonwealth’s current, licensed casinos with each casino paying an $8 million license fee to offer internet gaming;
  • Age and geo-location controls will be required – players must open an account, be 21 or over and must be located within PA while participating in internet gambling;
  • The tax rate on internet gambling revenue would total 16%;
  • Participating casinos would not be allowed to reduce their number of slots machines their existing b casinos

Daily Fantasy Sports

  • Bill allows current DFA operators like FanDuel and Draft Kings to obtain a license to offer DFS without partnering with a PA casino; DFS operators would pay 5% of its revenues ( after player payouts) to the state;
  • DFS players must be 18 yo or older;

Slots at OTBs

  • PA’s 5 racetrack casinos would each be permitted to have up to 4 off-track betting parlors with up to 250 slot machines per OTB;
  • Each such OTB must be outside a 50 mile radius of an established PA casino;
  • There is a $5 million licensee fee for each OTB with slots;

Slots at Airports

  • Casinos can seek permission to install slot machines at airports; the PA Gaming Control Bd can set limits on the number of slot machines l allowed;
  • License fees for such operations would be $5 million in Philadelphia; $2.5 million in Pittsburgh; and $1 million a each at the four other international airports in PA;

Expansion of Current Resort Casinos

  • Current Category III casinos in PA can expand their max slot machines counts from 600 to 850 and table games from 50 to 65;
  • There is also a relaxation in the requirement that casino patrons be customers of other amenities;
  • If a current Category III casino and all three changes it so would requires $4.5 million is additional license fees.

Sports Wagering

  • The bill instructs the PA Gaming Control Bd to develop regulations to allow for sports wagering if, and when the federal government permits such sport betting

New Jersey Senate and Assembly Reach Compromise on North Jersey Casino Expansion

Under a compromise reached by the New Jersey Senate and Assembly leadership the proposed state Constitutional amendment will be put to a vote in both bodies which would allow two additional casinos in the northern part of the state.   Under the compromise current  Atlantic City casino license holders would have and inside track and have six months to submit proposals to build the new casinos, and their plans must call for investing at least $1 billion in each facility.

If that criteria isn’t met, those without Atlantic City licenses can bid to build the new North Jersey casinos.  They would also be required to invest at least $1 billion for each facility

It appears the proposed amendments will not be voted on in this current legislative session which ends on Tuesday, January 12, 2016 and 12:00 noon, but rather in the new session which begins thereafter.  As such both the Assembly and Senate will be required to pass the amended proposal with 3/5th majorities for the proposed amendment to be on the November, 2016 ballot.

 

New Jersey Assembly Offers its Version of North Jersey Casino Expansion

Just days following a proposed amendment to the New Jersey State Constitution proposed in the State Senate and as detailed here , the New Jersey Assembly offered its own proposed Amendment to the Constitution which would also authorize up to two additional casinos in North Jersey.

Both Amendments propose no more the two casinos, each located in different counties and outside a 75 mile radius of Atlantic City.  The 75 mile radius restriction eliminates Monmouth Park Racetrack as a possible site for casino expansion.

The primary differences are as follows;

    • Applicant eligibility:  The Assembly version of the proposed amendment allows one of the two licenses to be awarded to an applicant with no current ownership or ties to an existing Atlantic City casino.  The Senate version of the amendment limits eligibility to (1) a currently licensed Atlantic City casino operating as of December 11, 2015; or (2) any person licensed as a principal owner (yet undefined) of a holder of a New Jersey casino license that was operating a casino which was conducting gambling on December 11, 2015 if that principal owner also holds a valid license to own and operate a casino in another jurisdiction with licensing standards similar to those in New Jersey.  The Assembly version only applies the Senate version’s proposed eligibility requirements to the “initial license.”  The current Atlantic City casino tie-in eligibility requirement presumably does not apply to the second license awarded.
    • Tax Allocation to Atlantic City.  The Assembly version of the proposed Constitutional Amendment allocates 35% of state tax revenuers from the two new casinos for purposes if the recovery, stabilization or improvement of Atlantic  City.  The Senate version  allocate 49% of such tax revenue for the recovery, stabilization or improvement of Atlantic  City.

The Senate and Assembly must agree on an identical version of the proposed Amendment which would have to be approved with 3/5 votes by both houses of the NJ Legislature or majority votes, twice over two years.  The votes have to be completed at least 90 days before going on the ballot of a state-wide referendum to amend the NJ State Constitution.

New Jersey Legislature Takes First Step To Authorize North Jersey Casinos

A Proposed Amendment to the New Jersey State Constitution will authorize two additional casinos in the State. The details of the Proposed Amendment are as follows:

  • No more than 2 casinos, each one to be located in different counties in State
  • New casinos must be located  outside a 75 mile radius from Atlantic City.
  • Eligibility for the license is limited to:
    • (1) a currently licensed Atlantic City casino operating as of December 11, 2015; or
    • or (2 ) any person licensed as a principal owner (yet undefined) of a holder of a New Jersey casino license that was operating a casino which was conducting gambling on December 11, 2015 if that principal owner also holds a valid license to own and operate a casino in another jurisdiction with licensing standards similar to those in New Jersey
  • Tax rate to be determined in subsequent legislation. 49% of such tax revenue for 15 years is dedicated for recovery , stabilization or improvement of Atlantic City.  2% of tax revenue dedicated to thoroughbred and standardbred  horsemen.
  • The Resolution has to be approved with 3/5 votes by both houses of the NJ Legislature or majority votes twice over two years. The votes have to be completed at least 90 days before going on the ballot of a state-wide referendum to amend the NJ State Constitution.

A copy of the proposed amendment can be read here: SCR 185.

© 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