{"id":531,"date":"2026-01-21T11:19:54","date_gmt":"2026-01-21T15:19:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/gaminglaw\/?p=531"},"modified":"2026-01-21T12:23:33","modified_gmt":"2026-01-21T16:23:33","slug":"the-nevada-gaming-control-boards-notice-regarding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/gaminglaw\/2026\/01\/21\/the-nevada-gaming-control-boards-notice-regarding\/","title":{"rendered":"The Nevada Gaming Control Board\u2019s Notice Regarding Industry Guidance for Online Gaming Products"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By: Justin Mignogna<\/a>, Adam Berger<\/a>, and Sara Tait<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On January 16, 2026, the Nevada Gaming Control Board (\u201cNGCB<\/strong>\u201d) issued Notice #2026-04<\/a> (the \u201cNotice<\/strong>\u201d) to provide updated guidance to all Licensees and Applicants, as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates, that currently operate in, or seek to pursue opportunities in, online gaming in jurisdictions outside Nevada.  The Notice\u2019s stated goal is to reduce potential adverse consequences for Licensees and Applicants under the NGCB\u2019s Foreign Gaming requirements, as well as applicable Nevada statutory and regulatory provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The growth of Internet gambling, including wagering activities found in real money online casinos, among other forms of online gaming (collectively, \u201cOnline Gaming<\/strong>\u201d), each of which relies upon online wagering games, operating platforms, systems or software and\/or other content designed for online play (\u201cOnline Gaming Products<\/strong>\u201d), has greatly expanded in recent years.  With this expansion, the NGCB recognizes that there have been challenges regarding what jurisdictions are lawful to operate in versus which ones are illegal\/prohibited.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This uncertainty is compounded by other factors like whether the Online Gaming Products are offered from within or outside the jurisdiction, and the variety of Online Gaming Product commercialization approaches available.  The Notice addresses different business models, or commercialization approaches, which most notably include, but are not limited to: Business-to-Consumer<\/strong>, where a Licensee operates Online Gaming, offering Online Gaming Products directly to players; Business-to-Business<\/strong> (\u201cB2B<\/strong>\u201d), where Licensees supply Online Gaming Products to third parties that offer these Online Gaming Products to players in certain Jurisdictions; and Games and Content Aggregators<\/strong> (\u201cAggregators<\/strong>\u201d) that distribute Online Gaming Products across multiple operators or platforms (collectively, \u201cCommercialization Approach(es)<\/strong>\u201d). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Without definitive guidance, the Notice recognizes that there have been different assessments across the gaming industry leading to inconsistent interpretations of the legality of offering Online Gaming Products directly or indirectly under different Commercialization Approaches in different jurisdictions and how certain offerings and associations may impact Nevada suitability.  For example, on April 18, 2016, the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (\u201cNJDGE<\/strong>\u201d) issued a Director\u2019s Advisory Bulletin<\/a> (the \u201cBulletin<\/strong>\u201d) providing guidance on the legality of Internet gaming in \u201cblack markets\u201d and \u201cgrey markets.\u201d  The Bulletin defines black markets as jurisdictions where authorities have taken affirmative enforcement actions to prohibit online gaming or have issued clear official statements that online gaming is illegal.  Such actions include criminal or civil proceedings against operators, formal cease-and-desist letters from senior officials, or direct notification to the NJDGE of a prohibition.  Internet gaming companies operating in black markets cannot demonstrate the \u201cgood character, honesty, and integrity\u201d required for licensure under New Jersey law.  By contrast, the Bulletin provides that companies that participate in Internet gaming in grey market jurisdictions (and do not participate in black market jurisdictions) will be deemed by the NJDGE to be suitable for licensure in New Jersey.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To comply with Nevada Law, Licensees and Applicants \u2013 and their affiliates and subsidiaries \u2013 are expected to follow the Notice when evaluating the legal suitability of any jurisdiction.  Accordingly, Licensees are expected to exercise full and proper due diligence<\/u><\/strong> regarding a jurisdiction\u2019s laws, regulations, rules, policies, interpretive guidance, or declarations (\u201cApplicable Laws<\/strong>\u201d) before entering a jurisdiction, regardless of the Commercialization Approach and regardless of whether the offering occurs from within or outside the jurisdiction.  Due diligence may include consulting with the Licensee\u2019s internal risk or compliance department(s) and\/or committee(s).  Due diligence may also include consulting with the NGCB\u2019s Investigations Division<\/u><\/strong> as well.  Notably, it is the NGCB\u2019s view that the absence of any enforcement action against any gaming company in a specific jurisdiction does not<\/u><\/strong> in itself mean that Online Gaming Products may be legally offered there.  Instead, the Licensee is still required to conduct its own due diligence to independently assess<\/u><\/strong> the legality of offering Online Gaming Products in each jurisdiction prior to engaging in any commercial activity there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For B2B or Aggregator Commercialization Approaches, a Licensee\u2019s due diligence can rely on their contractual partner\u2019s due diligence if certain conditions are met, including: (1) contractual partner(s) providing written assurances of compliance with all Applicable Laws; (2) the Licensee\u2019s ability to terminate contracts upon the discovery of regulatory concerns; (3) Licensees working closely with their contractual partner(s) to ensure that the Licensee\u2019s Online Gaming Products are not offered in any prohibited jurisdictions; and (4) Licensees conduct all necessary due diligence themselves as to presumptively prohibited jurisdictions discussed below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NGCB establishes a presumption that a jurisdiction is a prohibited jurisdiction if it: (1) has Applicable Laws that expressly prohibit Online Gaming offered either from within or outside the Jurisdiction; and\/or (2) has taken enforcement actions against players or companies offering Online Gaming, including, but not limited to: criminal proceedings, civil proceedings, the blocking of IP addresses or internet domains (DNS Blocking), Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), Layer-7 filtering, cease and desist orders, banking actions, and\/or payment blocking.  To overcome this presumption, a Licensee should conduct its own due diligence to support its conclusion that the jurisdiction is not prohibited, which should be documented and submitted to the NGCB prior to the commencement (or the continuation) of any Commercialization Approaches in such jurisdiction(s).  The Notice provides a non-exhaustive list of jurisdictions that are considered examples of presumptively prohibited jurisdictions (as of January 16, 2026): Australia, China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Thailand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Notice concludes by imposing the following requirements: (1) Licensees are expected to conduct thorough due diligence of all Jurisdictions in which the Licensee knowingly offers any Online Gaming Products at least every two years<\/u><\/strong>; (2) Licensees are expected to maintain a register<\/u><\/strong> documenting their assessments and findings regarding the legality of offering Online Gaming Products in each jurisdiction based on their own due diligence, which must be made available to the NGCB upon request<\/u><\/strong>; (3) if an Online Gaming Product is discovered to be offered in a presumptively prohibited jurisdiction, Licensees are expected to take prompt and commercially reasonable steps to remove such products from that jurisdiction and to prevent continued availability to the same (unless the Licensee can rebut the presumption to the NGCB\u2019s satisfaction); (4) Licensees currently offering Online Gaming Products outside Nevada are expected to provide the NGCB with a current list of all such jurisdictions within 60 days<\/u> <\/strong>of the Notice; (5) thereafter, Licensees must notify the NGCB on a quarterly basis<\/u><\/strong> of any new jurisdictions deemed suitable; and (6) the NGCB reserves the right to review compliance with these requirements.  For Licensees currently operating Online Gaming outside Nevada, the NGCB Chair may allow a reasonable compliance period<\/u><\/strong> upon written request and on a case-by-case basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In sum, the Notice provides Licensees and Applicants with clearer guidance on how to ensure compliance with Nevada expectations moving forward.  Licensees and Applicants must now rely on their own independent assessments and findings regarding the legality of Online Gaming in jurisdictions outside Nevada, they must document these assessments and findings in a register that must be made available to the NGCB upon request, and Licensees now face expanded reporting obligations, including providing the NGCB with a list of all jurisdictions in which they offer Online Gaming Products in outside of Nevada within 60 days of the January 16, 2026 Notice, and reporting any newly approved jurisdictions on a quarterly basis thereafter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, while the Notice is facially related to Internet gaming, it can potentially have broader implications as well, including but not limited to the prediction markets space.  For instance, the NGCB previously issued Notice #2025-77<\/a> on October 15, 2025 in response to inquiries regarding the NGCB\u2019s stance on sports events contracts.  The NGCB advised, in pertinent part, that a licensee may be subject to discipline under Nevada law if it offers Sports and Other Event Contracts in another state without complying with that state\u2019s restrictions, prohibitions, or licensing regime, partners with an entity engaged in such activities, or violates a compacted tribal right.  Notice #2025-77 further advised that engaging in, or associating with entities engaged in, unlawful sports wagering in another state may call into question a licensee\u2019s good character, integrity, and ongoing suitability.  On November 25, 2025, the NGCB issued Notice #2025-100<\/a>, wherein it re-affirmed and re-issued the guidance it provided to licensees regarding event contracts offered in Nevada and other states in Notice #2025-77. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Notice #2025-77 provides guidance to licensees in the prediction markets space, it is less expansive than the requirements imposed by the Notice on Licensees and Applicants in the Internet gaming space.  However, in light of recent events in Nevada, see<\/em> Notice #2025-100, licensees in the prediction markets space may face increased obligations moving forward, including but not limited to independently assessing the legality of their own commercial operations in certain jurisdictions and complying with additional self-reporting requirements to the NGCB regarding the same \u2013 similar to the obligations imposed by this Notice in the Internet gaming context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By: Justin Mignogna, Adam Berger, and Sara Tait On January 16, 2026, the Nevada Gaming Control Board (\u201cNGCB\u201d) issued Notice #2026-04 (the \u201cNotice\u201d) to provide updated guidance to all Licensees and Applicants, as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates, that currently operate in, or seek to pursue opportunities in, online gaming in jurisdictions outside Nevada.  … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “The Nevada Gaming Control Board\u2019s Notice Regarding Industry Guidance for Online Gaming Products”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":119,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[284],"class_list":["post-531","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"authors":[{"term_id":284,"user_id":119,"is_guest":0,"slug":"sdadmin","display_name":"sdadmin","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/31a16c152252459106cbb903972e1c83df6c77f1ad96a23485cb8cab6fb16807?s=96&d=blank&r=g","author_category":"","last_name":"Admin","first_name":"Software Development","job_title":"","user_url":"","description":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/gaminglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/531","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/gaminglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/gaminglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/gaminglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/119"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/gaminglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=531"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/gaminglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/531\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/gaminglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=531"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/gaminglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=531"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/gaminglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=531"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/gaminglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=531"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}