Category Archives: Gambling Venues

Online Gambling in Jeopardy in Wake of New Dep of Justice Ruling

Casino Watch Focus has reported on the impact of the Obama Administration’s reinterpretation of the long standing Wire Act. It very clearly made online gambling that crossed state lines illegal, but the Obama Administration said it only covers sports betting, thereby opening the floodgates to all forms of online gambling except sports betting. This understandably led to a lot of concerns and questions over the safeguarding of those with access to online casinos, poker rooms or lotteries. Casino Watch reported two years ago that the Trump Administration was heavily considering reversing that reinterpretation and restoring the Wire Act to its original congressional intent. The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice has followed through: 

The 2011 opinion opened the door for cash-strapped states and their lotteries to bring online gambling to their residents, as long as it did not involve interstate sports betting.

Nevada, New Jersey and Delaware legalized online gambling after that opinion was issued, and the three states have agreements allowing poker players to compete online across the states. Pennsylvania became the fourth state to legalize online casino gambling in 2017.

Now, the Justice Department says the previous opinion misinterpreted the statute.

“Based upon the plain language of the statute, however, we reach a different result,” attorneys for the department wrote in the opinion dated Nov. 2. “While the Wire Act is not a model of artful drafting, we conclude that the words of the statute are sufficiently clear and that all but one of its prohibitions sweep beyond sports gambling.”

The Wire Act was enacted in 1961 to target the mob and its gambling activities.

The full scope of the impact of this decision by the Depart of Justice is still unknown and this story will continue to develop. It’s very possible that a sea of litigation will be opened up, but the Depart of Justice hasn’t fully explained how severely they plan to enforce this interpretation. The AP continues: 

Jennifer Roberts, associate director of the International Center for Gaming Regulation at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said the impact of the opinion rests on how strictly the Justice Department is going to enforce the new interpretation of the statute.

“Some could go really far and say even if you send a text message to a casino customer in another state and you are saying ‘Come play blackjack this weekend here’s a deal,’ arguably you can say that is information that assists in the placement of a wager,” she said. “I doubt it will go that far, but we will once again be subject to the interpretation.”

The new legal opinion will likely be challenged in court, an issue acknowledged by the department attorneys in their document.

Daniel Wallach, co-founding director of the University of New Hampshire School of Law Sports Wagering and Integrity Program, said the opinion could have “an immediate chilling effect” on the ability of states to conduct lotteries online.

“I think the most obviously impacted stakeholders are the lotteries that do internet sales, and that group is the most likely stakeholder to challenge this opinion in court.”

Advocacy group Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling and former U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas in a statement cheered the new opinion, characterizing the previous one as “problematic legally as it was morally” and calling the new one a “win for parents, children and other vulnerable populations.”

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

Advertisements

Casino Billionaire buys Florida Casino after Amendment 3 is Passed by the People

Casino Watch Focus has reported on the many efforts to expand gambling in Florida, specifically via full blown, Vegas-style resort casinos. Most efforts have failed to produce any meaningful gambling expansion. Most recently, Amendment 3 was passed by Florida Voters, meaning future gambling expansion efforts must be voted on by the people, making such gambling expansion far less likely given the current climate. So a new casino property acquisition by a well-known Las Vegas casino mogul has raised a few questions about intent. As one online source reportsPhil Ruffin has acquired a new casino property in Florida with the intent of some kind of expansion, the extent of which isn’t yet know:

Phil Ruffin is well known in the casino industry as the owner of the Treasure Island Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. The 83-year-old billionaire is looking to expand his domain and has now purchased the Casino Miami near the Miami International Airport in Florida.

The 200,000-square-foot casino is located less than 20 minutes from Downtown Miami. It features 1,000 “Vegas-style” gaming machines (and has a license for as many as 2,000) and an electronic table game area, along with live entertainment, live jai-alai and simulcast betting. The amount paid for Ruffin to acquire the casino was not released, but he said, “I look forward to entering the Miami gaming market through this acquisition. We have exciting plans for Casino Miami that we will be revealing in the near future.”

The purchase follows a state referendum vote last month that removed power to decide gaming-relating issues from lawmakers and gave it to voters. Going forward, any new gambling expansion will have to be voted on by citizens. Commercial casinos remain banned and house-banked games, such as roulette and blackjack, are only allowed by the Seminole Indian tribe Getting into Florida through Casino Miami is a way for Ruffin to develop a foothold ahead of any future expansion.

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


Will Florida Amendment 3 Push the NFL’s Jaguars to London?

Casino Watch Focus has long reported on the many faces of sports betting. With a fairly recent Supreme Court decision that allows for sports betting, many states have expanded in many ways. Florida had yet to pass legislation to legalize sports betting, so everything from daily fantasy sports to full sports books, remains open in Florida. Recently, the NFL has started shifting advocacy to support sports gambling and individual teams will be able to set up sponsorships like the Dallas Cowboys have done with a casino in their market. The Miami Dolphins came out against Amendment 3 and now there is talk about the Jaguars being more open to moving to London to avoid the current lack of open sports betting options in Florida. The NESN sports network explains: 

The future of legalized sports betting in Florida looks bleak at best, and one prominent NFL reporter thinks that could significantly alter the league’s landscapes in years to come. Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio on Wednesday morning wondered whether the new law makes it more likely Jaguars owner Shad Khan will ultimately move the team to London. “The passage of the new amendment that, as a practical matter, will make it much harder to adopt sports wagering (and in turn create revenue streams like in-game prop bets) could make a relocation to London even more attractive to Khan,” Florio wrote. 

Speculation about Khad moving the Jaguars to London has existed almost since Khad bought the team in 2011. Khan’s purchase of English soccer club Fulham in 2013 only fanned those flames, and there’s been increased chatter about a potential relocation in recent years. Sports betting is far more prominent in the English soccer world, with no shortage of English Premier League partnerships. What’s more is that in-game betting is also allowed, and fans can place those bets from inside the stadium. The latest developments in Florida not only ensure in-game wagering won’t be coming to the Sunshine State anytime soon. It will also make it harder for the state’s pro sports teams to partner with sportsbooks because, well, the sportsbooks aren’t coming to Florida.

There are a lot of variables to the level of profitability form gambling NFL teams will even see, not to mention all of the logistical issues with the NFL having a team in London in general. Its hard to imagine that the chance of side gambling profits, profits that barely exist in the league at the moment, would be enough to move a team. This will undoubtedly be a developing story, but the move to London has been a topic since 2011, so its unlikely Florida NFL fans have much to worry about right now. 

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


Possible New Miami Gambling Expansion Plan Faces Regulatory Roadblock

Casino Watch Focus has reported on the many efforts to expand gambling in Florida. There have been several attempts at passing Vegas-style resort casinos, but those failed. Other gambling expansion attempts include slots, card games and jai alai. Now most recently, gambling expansion efforts are being made in Miami. Magic City Casino is seeking to open a jai alai fronton and poker room in the Edgewater neighborhood. The proposal was seen as controversial by many citing concerns that it would lead to even more gambling expansion. Now in response, city planners are using zoning regulations to halt the immediate expansion so the process can be open to feedback from the community. An online source explains: 

City commissioners voted 4-0 on Thursday to authorize Miami City Manager Emilio Gonzalez and the planning department to begin working on amendments to the Miami 21 zoning code that would define what gambling facilities are and where such facilities can be located in the city. It would also require four out of five commissioners to vote in favor of any future pari-mutuels, casinos, or card rooms.

Commissioner Ken Russell proposed the legislation after learning that the state’s division of pari-mutuel wagering recently awarded a permit to West Flagler Associates, the entity that owns Magic City Casino. West Flagler would lease the property from Crescent Heights and would also include a restaurant and poker room.

Several prominent businessmen and developers, including Jorge Perez, Craig Robins and Norman Braman, have come out against the new gambling facility.

Russell said the city does not have a mechanism in place that requires gambling facilities to go through a public process that would vet any proposed development or give the city the ability to reject the location of a new casino, pari-mutuel or card room. He said adding the regulations ensures residents have a role in deciding whether they want gambling facilities in their neighborhood.

 

 

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


UPDATE: Supreme Court Strikes down Federal Sports Betting Ban, Creates ‘Wild West’ for Sports Gambling and Potential Devastation for Problem Gamblers

Casino Watch Focus has reported on the ongoing efforts lead by New Jersey to reverse federal bans of sports betting. After many failed attempts, New Jersey has finally succeeded in opening the door for them to regulate sports gambling. This obviously opens the door for every state as well, and the ramifications will be serious. In an op-ed piece published by the Hill, John W. Kindt, a professor of business and legal policy in the Department of Business Administration at the University of Illinois’ Gies College of Business, who for 20 years has focused his specialty research on the societal, business and economic impacts of decriminalizing gambling activities, outlines how such a reversal of policy creates a Wild West: 

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Murphy v. NCAA, a case brought by the State of New Jersey to overturn the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which was sponsored, ironically enough, by former Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), a professional basketball legend, to protect the integrity of U.S. sports. Trying to legalize sports gambling, New Jersey lost twice in U.S. district court and twice in the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals between 2012-2014. In a perplexing move, however, the Supreme Court accepted New Jersey’s appeal and heard the case on Dec. 4, despite the recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor General advising the court to reject New Jersey’s appeal.

Generally ignoring the practical economic and social effects of enabling unregulated “real time” sports gambling, for example by kids on cell phones, a divided court decided “to destroy PASPA rather than salvage the statute” complained Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent.

The majority decision focused almost exclusively on New Jersey’s myopic arguments invoking the “anti-commandeering” principle of a 1992 case New York v. United States, while ignoring the obvious interstate impacts and the well-established Commerce Clause empowering congressional action on interstate sports.

While appearing innocuous to the uninitiated, the Murphy case will quickly generate ubiquitous and unregulated “Wild West” sports gambling. It is academically well-documented that this type of gambling is poised to explode with local and strategic economic impacts negatively affecting the U.S. economy.

While unlikely, immediate congressional actions regulating the practical impacts of the Murphy case are necessary.

While the Supreme Court cited the U.S. Gambling Commission’s 1999 Final Report, the court missed the Final Report’s numerous recommendations against gambling in cyberspace — particularly sports gambling.

Sports gambling in real time on cell phones and computers was highlighted as an example of the “crack cocaine” for hooking college students, teens and kids into addicted gambling. The Supreme Court also missed a wide spectrum of negative economic and financial issues associated with widespread sports gambling.

The complete editorial can be read HEREAdditionally, its important to understand this move might be the single greatest expansion of gambling seen by a single court case. The ramification of such explosive legalized gambling cant be overstated. A Press Release by the National Council on Problem Gambling explains their position: 

“Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court is the largest potential expansion of gambling in our nation’s history now that an additional 49 states have the opportunity to legalize sports betting. NCPG believes the expansion of legalized sports gambling in the United States will likely increase gambling participation and gambling problems unless steps are taken to minimize harm,” says Marlene Warner, President of the NCPG Board of Directors.

NCPG’s wide-ranging and deep experience in these fields since 1972 allows the organization to provide a clear-eyed perspective on both the benefits and pitfalls of legalized gambling, and to find a middle way that addresses concerns on all sides. Revenues from legalized sports betting must be viewed in the context of social costs. Research has shown that current gambling activity generates over $115 billion in overall revenue to local, state and federal government, but also results in $6.5 billion in associated costs, including criminal justice and healthcare costs. These costs are often hidden and difficult to see. Approximately 2% of adults experience gambling problems, or approximately 5 million people. These social and economic impacts must not be ignored.

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


The 4 Major Players Sports Association and the PGA join the MLB and NBA Regarding Having Their Cut of the Potential Sports Betting Action

Casino Watch Focus has reported on the ongoing Supreme Court case and the history leading up to the potential legalization of sports betting. New Jersey has taken years of attempts to legalize sports betting in their state to the Highest Court and a ruling is expected soon. With the prevailing thought being the Supreme Court will legalize sports betting outside of Las Vegas, many are looking forward to the landscape, and positioning themselves to benefit from the gambling expansion that would follow. Recently, Major League Baseball and the National Baseball Association started suggesting legislation to various states that would provide them with a cut of the gambling action, or in their words, and integrity fee. Now it would appear the PGA has decided to make their position known, and they are supporting an integrity fee as well. An online source explains:

With Illinois the latest state to consider legalizing sports betting, the PGA Tour took the opportunity to voice its support for initiatives backed by the NBA and Major League Baseball.

The revelation of professional golf’s stance on the issue of gambling was disclosed at a hearing of the Illinois Senate Gaming Committee on Tuesday. It was the first time that the tour voiced a definitive opinion on the subject.

So chalk up another professional ruling body’s support for the controversial integrity fee. The NBA and MLB have spent considerable sums trying to persuade several state’s legislators in attempting to get what amounts to a royalty from any potential sports betting a state may implement. The two leagues have a reported 30-registered lobbyists working the halls of 16 state congresses.

It wasn’t just the PGA that voiced their support for a seat at this potential gambling table. In a joint statement released by the MLB Players associationit would appear all four major players groups wants to be a part of ensuring this so called “integrity”:

“Given the pending Supreme Court decision regarding the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA), representatives of the MLBPA, NBPA, NFLPA and NHLPA have been working together on the legal, commercial, practical, and human consequences of allowing sports betting to become mainstream. The time has come to address not just who profits from sports gambling, but also the costs. Our unions have been discussing the potential impact of legalized gambling on players’ privacy and publicity rights, the integrity of our games and the volatility on our businesses. Betting on sports may become widely legal, but we cannot allow those who have lobbied the hardest for sports gambling to be the only ones controlling how it would be ushered into our businesses. The athletes must also have a seat at the table to ensure that players’ rights and the integrity of our games are protected.”

As far as the likelihood of the Supreme Court legalizing sports betting by declaring the PAPSA unconstitutional, the mood has slightly shifted. Initially the prevailing thought was that the Court took up the case and then asked the questions they did during oral arguments because they planned to reverse the lower court. This could still be the case, but given the delay in the actual ruling, some are now worried the Court may now uphold the constitutionality of the PAPSA. An online source reports:

It’s been four months since the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard arguments regarding the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) of 1992, the current federal law that prohibits sports betting in all but four American states.

During the December 4 hearing, many in the courtroom felt a majority of the justices were on New Jersey’s side in the state arguing that PASPA violates the Constitution and anti-commandeering interpretations of the Tenth Amendment. But with an opinion still not issued, there’s a growing concern among repeal proponents that the court might not produce a favorable decision.

Many believed March 5 would be the day SCOTUS unveiled its PASPA opinion. In February, online sportsbook BetDSI was taking wagers on the release date and had March 5 the favorite at even money. It was followed by April 2 (+150), April 30 (+300), May 14 (+750), May 21 (+1000), and May 29 (+2500). The sportsbook has since removed the market, as handicapping the line is nearly impossible as SCOTUS provides no information as to when opinions will be released.* The next most probable release date is April 30, as the Supreme Court tends to publish opinions on Mondays when the court is in session, but not hearing arguments.

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