Category Archives: Court Case/Decision

UPDATE: Seminole Tribe Ends Payments to Florida After Failed Compact Negotiations: Special Legislative Session Talks Begin

Casino Watch Focus has reported on the recent news that the Florida legislative session would end with no gambling deal in place. The failure to renegotiate a deal has been an ongoing issue. At the core of the problem is that the Seminoles have exclusive rights to table games and certain gambling. Florida has not been enforcing this exclusivity and the courts sided with the Seminoles. However, the Seminoles have been acting in good faith, providing the state with the estimated $300 – $350 million annual payments the original agreement set up for such exclusivity. But now that the legislature has once again failed to stop others from offering designated card games, which is expanding gambling in the state, the Seminole tribe has decided to now stop providing the good faith payments. The Sun Sentinel reports:  

The tribe had warned it would halt the payments, which totaled nearly $330 million last year, because of controversial designated-player card games offered by many of the state’s pari-mutuel cardrooms. The Seminoles — and a federal judge — say the games violate part of a 20-year gambling deal by the tribe and the state in 2010. That deal, in part, gave the tribe exclusive rights to “banked” card games. 

The Seminole Tribe of Florida made good on threats Tuesday by telling Gov. Ron DeSantis it is quitting a long-standing revenue-sharing agreement with the state after negotiations on a new gambling deal went nowhere this spring. 

In a July 2017 settlement between the Seminoles and former Gov. Rick Scott, the state agreed to drop its appeal of Hinkle’s decision and to take “aggressive enforcement action” against pari-mutuels operating banked card games that violate state law. In exchange, the Seminoles agreed to continue making payments to the state until the end of this month. “Unfortunately, there has not been aggressive enforcement against those games, which have expanded since Judge Hinkle’s decision,” Osceola wrote.

Florida lawmakers considered this possible outcome, and mad adjustments the budget, but some believe the financial contribution, and the gambling restriction that comes from Seminole exclusivity, too import to not make an attempt to resolve the issue.   An online source explains:

State Representative Evan Jenne called for negotiations with the Seminole Tribe of Florida to reinstate the annual payments of an estimated $350 million suspended by the tribe after a failure to reach an agreement about the future of gambling in the state. “That’s just too much money to be left out there unaccounted for in our budget,” said the legislator.

Jenne, a Democrat who represents 99th District which include most of Hollywood and Southern Broward, said the suspension of payments from the tribe could have been avoided. “It was something that was a long time coming, it’s been talked about for quite some time it’s been nearly a decade since the compact would, should have been signed,” he said.

“They had a promised of exclusivity when it came to games like that and the state has not done their part in holding up that part of the bargain,” said Jenne.

For more information on the dangers of gambling, please visit CASINO WATCH & CASINO WATCH FOUNDATION

 

Advertisements

DOJ Seeks to get State Online Lottery Lawsuit Dropped

Casino Watch Focus has reported on the Department of Justice’s reversal of the Wire Act and that decision’s impact on online gambling. Many said lawsuits would be the deciding fact as to whether or not they could reverse the out of place Obama Administration’s reinterpretation of the wire act, which lead to the massive expansion of online gambling. One area of concern for states has been the impact on state lotteries, specifically where those state offer online access to their lotteries. The DOJ recently extended the deadline as they wanted to more closely examine the full range of its ruling. The DOJ is now seeking a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by New Hampshire claiming they don’t have standing to sue yet and that the state hasn’t proven that the ruling would even impact them. The Associated Press explains: 

The U.S. Justice Department says in a federal court brief that the New Hampshire Lottery Commission has failed to demonstrate that it wouldn’t be immune from 1960s law enacted to crack down on the mob.

On Thursday, the Justice Department filed the brief in Concord, New Hampshire, in response to a judge’s order for it to clarify its interpretation of the Wire Act. States fear losing at least $220 million annually in lottery profits if the Wire Act is determined to apply to all forms of gambling that crosses state lines.

The department also affirmed any early promise to not prosecute state lotteries or their vendors while it continues to review whether the Wire Act applies to lotteries.

The concern goes beyond the state of New Hampshire. Several states offer online access to their lotteries and some lotteries extent to multiple states. Some believe the intent of the DOJ isn’t to stop lotteries, as Powerball and Mega Millions are too engrained as a societal norm, but the actual transactions might very well fit the original 1960 Wire Act. An online source explains: 

The states are anxiously waiting on a clarification from the Justice Department about its opinion that, if strictly interpreted, would outlaw lottery tickets sold online and prohibit all lottery-related activities that use the internet. Legal experts say Powerball and Mega Millions are at risk if the opinion is read to the letter, which would cost the states billions. 

Seven states now sell lottery tickets online and others offer residents internet-based lottery subscription services.

When state lotteries use the internet to transmit data for online ticket sales, the network signal can cross state lines, and games that are played in multiple state s, like Powerball and Mega Millions, transmit data to a central database out of state, according to the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries.

For more information on the dangers of gambling, please visit CASINO WATCH & CASINO WATCH FOUNDATION


Tribal Casino Sues Video Gaming Company over Illegal Loot Box Gambling

Casino Watch Focus has reported on the ongoing saga of the new gambling mechanic in video games know as loot boxes. This mechanic works by having players purchase boxes full of mystery items in video games. These boxes often cost real world money and the items coming out of the box can be garden variety or fairly useless in game items all the way to very powerful weapons or items that give players a leg up. There have been may instances where these items hold real world value and some examples exist of those items being sold for real money. So the player puts money in the game, pulls the box open lever, gets a random prize of various value and then the player trades those in for real world money, very possibly at a financial gain. Many would argue that the mechanic described is the same as gambling on a slot machine, and that’s the very foundation of for a tribal casino’s lawsuit is video game manufacture.   An online source explains how such a lawsuit could be brought forth: 

The Quinault Indian Nation has filed a lawsuit against Valve, the makers of Steam, claiming that it is running an unlicensed gambling operation and demanding payment for damages.

Okay, this gets a little complicated so settle in. The Quinault Indian Nation owns and operates a licensed casino in the state of Washington, one that is regulated by the Washington Gaming Commission. Valve is also based in Washington.

In its suit against Valve (via Geekwire), the Quinault Nation alleges that “Valve facilitated illegal, unregulated and unlicensed online gambling” when it launched skins for /Counter-Strike: Global Offensive /(/CS:GO/).

Back in 2013, Valve started releasing skins for weapons in /CS:GO/, these upgrades are purely cosmetic. Players would earn crates by playing /CS:GO /and these crates could then be opened with keys which Valve sold in its store. The keys were the only way to open the crates, and it made Valve a tidy bit of cash.

The Quinault Nation says that “the look, feel, sound and experience [of opening a crate] was basically an online slot machine”, providing YouTube footage of players opening crates to back up its claim.

What’s particularly striking in this case, is that seemingly at every level of the transaction, Value, the company being sued by Quinault Indian Nation, had their hand in guiding the process. An online source explains:

It points to the skin gambling sites that were launching and says Valve did nothing to stop them. “Valve had actual knowledge of the identity of the Valve accounts that gambling websites used to effectuate gambling transactions, and chose not to take any action against them,” the court documents state.

It goes on to claim that “Valve allowed gambling websites to use Valve accounts on Valve’s servers and Valve’s computers to effectuate gambling transactions” and that “Valve also provided technical support to gambling websites and real-money cash out websites, despite those websites violating Valve’s Steam Subscriber Agreement, and would return control of gambling websites’ Valve accounts back to the gambling website after being hijacked or hacked by other third parties.”

Despite simply providing an incredibly clear picture for those legislative and consumer protection bodies looking to best understand just how much these loot boxes are no different from gambling, the tribe also outlines exactly how it hurts not only their business with the State, but how doing so illegally without following state regulation further harms those involved. They conclude: 

The Nation has a contract with the State of Washington that means it must remain compliant with the state’s laws if it wants to operate casinos, and that compliance costs money. It has to “engage in responsible gaming, prevent fraud, prevent illegal gaming, and prevent underage gambling”. The Nation also pays 2% of its earnings in Impact Mitigation Funds, which go to paying support services in area around the casino.

If Valve is a gambling operation, like the Nation claims, then it is an unlicensed one and doesn’t incur any of the costs or the risks that come with a gambling license. The Nation is suing for damages, but also the money Valve obtained through gambling transactions.

For more information on the dangers of gambling, please visit CASINO WATCH & CASINO WATCH FOUNDATION


Supreme Court Betting Case Lawsuit Against NFL and other Sports Leagues Shot Down by Court

Casino Watch Focus has reported on the New Jersey Monmouth Park lawsuit against the sports leagues in the wake of the Supreme Court legalizing sports betting. For years New Jersey attempted to legalize sports gambling, and for years, the courts shot down all their efforts. In the states most recent attempt however, the managed to get their case before the Supreme Court and they emerged victorious. Most simply moved forward with sports legalization efforts, but New Jersey’s Monmouth part saw an opportunity to sue the sports league. Their claim was that the various leagues had blocked years of sports betting revenue. Unfortunately for Monmouth Park, a court rejected their claim. ESPN reports:

Late Friday, United States District Judge Michael A. Shipp denied a claim filed in May by the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association (NJTHA) — a group associated with the Monmouth Park racetrack and casino — asking “for judgment on $3.4 million injunction bond plus interest and damages.”

The New Jersey-based group had filed the renewed claim against the NFL, NCAA, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball within weeks of the Supreme Court’s May 14 decision that opened the door for states to authorize sports betting nationwide.

“The Court … finds NJTHA was not wrongfully enjoined,” wrote Judge Shipp in a just-released nine-page ruling obtained by ESPN. “The Court, accordingly, finds good cause exists to deny NJTHA damages under the injunction bond.”

With the courtroom win, the NFL, NCAA, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball avoid a ruling that would have allowed other bookmakers to claw-back money allegedly lost during the time between when the five leagues sued to enforce the federal law banning single-game wagering outside of Nevada, and the date the Supreme Court declared the ban to be unconstitutional.

Monmouth Park and the NJTHA could potentially appeal Judge Shipp’s ruling in the coming weeks. The group had previously claimed “that the Leagues acted in bad faith by wrongfully blocking the NJTHA from operating a sports betting venue at Monmouth Park.” Neither current New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy nor former Governor Chris Christie were part of the case.

For more information on the dangers of gambling, please visit CASINO WATCH & CASINO WATCH FOUNDATION


Who should vote No on Florida Amendment 13? Those who oppose radical expansion of gambling and Those who want to join over 90 Dog Adoptions Agencies because they believe it hurts the best interest of Greyhounds

Casino Watch Focus has reported on the dangerously deceptive Greyhound Amendment and with the election right around the corner, its critically important that voters see through the deception.  Whether you are a dog lover or one looking to curb excessive gambling,  you should vote No on Florida Amendment 13  There are two reasons for a No on 13 vote and they are intertwined. 

The first reason to vote No on 13 is because it will result in a radical expansion of gambling.  As previously noted, Circuit Judge Karen Gievers calls it outright “trickeration,” because the decoupling issue is largely misunderstood by the public at large.  Right now, the only way these tracks can offer slot machines and other forms of gambling is if they operate a full racetrack.  This bill doesn’t simply stop dog racing.  In fact, it doesn’t stop racing at all, as races from other states will still be simulcast to the tracks.  However, the need to house a full track and care for the greyhounds in the proper and well regulated manner the law provides for today will no longer become necessary to have that other gambling.  This effectively means that tracks can operate as freestanding mini casinos and the only requirement is they simulcast races from other states. 

 The reason we don’t see a massive expansion of these mini-casinos now, is because it takes very qualified operators to raise and care for the dogs and maintain the space necessary for such races to physically occur.  Absent the need for an actual track, its infinitely easier for a “greyhound” parlor to start up, because it can simply fill the building with slot machines and provide a few TVs for simulcast dog racing.  It has been claimed that this could lead to the largest expansion of gambling in Florida, and it’s easy to see why.  If you would ordinarily be opposed to gambling expansion, then don’t be deceived.  This bill won’t reduce gambling by stopping dog races as you think.  It will expand gambling in the worst ways.

 The second reason to vote No on 13 is because of the wellbeing of the dogs involved.  At face, the amendment seems to get rid of dog racing as previously discussed, but its clear racing will still happen.  In this scenario however, the amendment will have negative impacts on the dogs.  This is precisely why over 90 dog adoption agencies are voting No on 13.  The following article, Guest Opinion: A No on 13 Vote is a Yes to the Best Interest  of Greyhounds, comes from an avid dog lover and greyhound enthusiast.  It is incredibly informative and explains from a dog lover’s perspective why a voter would want to oppose this amendment:

As one who has adopted two retired racers, I was initially torn when I saw this amendment. A ban on racing sounds like a good thing on the surface to a dog-lover.

Shouldn’t all dogs be spoiled like mine with couches for beds and baskets of chew toys? My first clue that this might not be the case came in my email inbox. I received my usual newsletter from the Greyhound adoption agency that we had used. The email stated their opposition to the amendment.

Quite frankly, I was shocked that this volunteer run organization, who put our family through an extensive adoption process which included thorough home visits, vet background checks, multiple references and intense education, was now explaining how the claims made by the proponents of the deceptive ban and Amendment 13 were unsubstantiated. They, along with 90+ adoption agencies, are in opposition to the amendment and encourage a “NO” vote.

After receiving the email, I went on a quest myself to find out more facts….

She goes on to outline very key points that dog lovers will want to learn, including the fact that there are absolutely no provisions in the amendment for dealing with the 8,000 or more greyhounds that will be displaced when live racing is banned.  Please click on article to get all the information and share as much as possible.

For more information on the dangers of gambling, please visit CASINO WATCH & CASINO WATCH FOUNDATION


UPDATE: Florida Supreme Court Allows Deceptively Dangerous Greyhound Amendment to go on ballot

Casino Watch Focus has reported on the greyhound amendment that seemingly ends all the dangers associated with greyhound racing. Unfortunately, the Florida amendment does no such thing and many argued the language in the amendment was deceptively dangerous and it would actually create mini-casinos all around the state, something known as decoupling. Right now, the dog racing is needed to allow the slot machines and other gambling at these facilities. For quite some time now, those machines have been the true bread and butter and the only thing really keeping the industry afloat. The amendment being proposed doesn’t end all of that harmful gambling, instead it decouples the dog racing meaning that so long as they still show dog racing from another venue on screen and take bets, they can continue to operate the mini-casinos. Most people who would support ending dog racing believe in ending the gambling all together, and it was argued in court that the amendment the Florida voters would vote on doesn’t make that clear. It was also pointed out that an issue like this belongs in the legislature and not as a constitutional amendment. The lower court called the amendment “out right trickeration,” but the Florida Supreme court ruled the language was sufficient to appear on the ballot, so now Florida voters must untangle this deception on their own. Florida Politics breaks down the ruling:

The Florida Supreme Court on Friday ordered a proposed *constitutional
amendment that would ban betting on live greyhound racing back on the ballot, reversing a lower-court judge. 

The court, in a 6-1 decision, overturned a previous order by Circuit Judge Karen Gievers, who ruled that Amendment 13’s ballot title and summary would mislead voters, calling it “outright ‘trickeration.’  ” Justice Peggy A. Quince dissented.

Jack Cory, spokesman and lobbyist for the *Florida Greyhound Association, which filed the legal challenge, said his group was “disappointed in the decision today… In a statement, Cory said the proposed constitutional change was made from “false and misleading information,” mentioning what he called the creation of “freestanding casinos” — a point the majority refuted, however. “This is the reason that you should not put issues like this into the Florida Constitution.”

[Justice] Quince said in a short dissent that “there is no reasonable way for a voter to know whether, by voting yes for this amendment, they are also voting to either suspend or expand” other gambling.

 

For more information on the dangers of gambling, please visit CASINO WATCH & CASINO WATCH FOUNDATION


UPDATE: MGM makes “Outrageous” Offer to Shooting Victims it’s Suing – Gets called out for PR Spin Attempt

Casino Watch Focus has reported on the MGM lawsuit that shocked so many. MGM’s hotel and casino, Mandalay Bay, was involved in worst mass shooting in modern American history. In what was seen as an unprecedented move, MGM decided to preemptively sue the victims families in an effort to stop any potential liability lawsuits they had and might occur. There are nearly 2,000 people that MGM is suing and they have reached out to try an offer a sort of an extremely strange deal that has been called out as a shameless PR stunt. The Associated Press explains: 

MGM Resorts International drew criticism Tuesday for saying hundreds of survivors of the Las Vegas mass shooting, who are being sued by the casino operator, could opt to have the money that will be used to serve them a lawsuit instead donated to a charity.

Serving defendants is a crucial step in a civil lawsuit. It informs a defendant that a lawsuit has been filed against him or her, provides the individual a copy of the complaint and starts running a 21-day deadline for the person to respond to the lawsuit. Eglet said the firms representing most of the victims have not been authorized to accept the legal notices. That would force MGM to find and serve each of the 1,977 people it sued.

The company […has] been working to notify them as it faces a standard 90-day deadline. MGM told the victims’ attorneys it would rather make the donations to charities than spend the money to pay people to serve the legal notices.

“The money spent on personal service of process — up to $250 per person — could be better directed to do some affirmative good,” MGM’s attorneys wrote in the letter shared with The Associated Press. MGM offered to make a $500 charitable donation for each person who waives being served or authorizes an attorney to accept service on their behalf, but a victims’ lawyer quickly called it all “nonsense.” Attorney Robert Eglet, part of a group representing most of the victims, said the company is just trying to “spin” its attempt to save money on serving legal notices. “It will cost the MGM significantly more than $250 to serve them,” Eglet said. “This is just more outrageous conduct by them.”

For more information on the dangers of gambling, please visit CASINO WATCH & CASINO WATCH FOUNDATION