Gaming Trade Group Encourages Regulators to Crack Down on Internet Sweepstakes
"In a memo regarding sweepstakes issued this month, the AGA said online sweepstakes casinos undermine gaming regulations and threaten consumers. The gaming lobby is urging state regulators to send warning notices to sweeps operators informing them they’ll face legal action if they don’t immediately terminate their US-focused operations.
“There are an increasing number of entities that have intentionally designed business models to circumvent or exploit ambiguity in state gambling laws and the regulatory frameworks within which the legal gaming industry operates,” the AGA memo read."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are other articles on it as well.
I have a deranged theory on this that I think people will laugh at. I think a good old fashion bank run could occur at these sweepstakes casinos; and the result will be a black Friday type of event.
I also think if any sweeps casino owner was capable of reading the writing on the wall; they'd realize the clock is ticking on how long they can operate. The smart move is to begin botting your own tables. (I'm not saying they currently are; I'm sure some are...but I'm strictly speaking hypothetical). Once the clock hits midnight; the operation is shut down...the only goal that would matter would be maximizing revenue until D-Day. (But I'm evil and look at it from what's best for maximizing cash, not what's best for the people).
AGA's main target is Global Poker which has operated in the U.S. using "sweepstakes" method since 2017.
Banned states include Washington, Idaho, Montana, Michigan, and Connecticut.
Connecticut was just announced (first week of September) leading to speculation that more states will follow.
Personally think its premature to assume an avalanche of pull-outs when AGA has had 7 years to convince states and has only succeeded with 5. Notable "hold outs" include most major states by population and online poker legalized states PA, NJ, NV.
AGA is a land based casinos lobbying group opposed to any and all forms of online poker so its not exactly a bedfellow of online poker legalized states.
AGA's main target is Global Poker which has operated in the U.S. using "sweepstakes" method since 2017.
Banned states include Washington, Idaho, Montana, Michigan, and Connecticut.
Connecticut was just announced (first week of September) leading to speculation that more states will follow.
Personally think its premature to assume an avalanche of pull-outs when AGA has had 7 years to convince states and has only succeeded with 5. Notable "hold outs" include most major states by population and onl
Will be pretty interesting to see what happens as Global's parent company has Ryan Seacrest sponsoring their main slots site and is making huge money so the ripple effect could kill their golden goose
LOL They really are targeting some small fishes like Global Poker in the market while Social Casino Giants such as Stake.us "sweepstakes" are operating within same model n generating millions of dollars daily and get free walk .
Now tell me whats the difference between this 2 ?
AGA's main target is Global Poker which has operated in the U.S. using "sweepstakes" method since 2017.
Banned states include Washington, Idaho, Montana, Michigan, and Connecticut.
Connecticut was just announced (first week of September) leading to speculation that more states will follow.
Personally think its premature to assume an avalanche of pull-outs when AGA has had 7 years to convince states and has only succeeded with 5. Notable "hold outs" include most major states by population and onl
File this AGA awakening under "Homer Simpsonisms"
"Oh they have the internet on computers now"
LOL They really are targeting some small fishes like Global Poker in the market while Social Casino Giants such as Stake.us "sweepstakes" are operating within same model n generating millions of dollars daily and get free walk .
Now tell me whats the difference between this 2 ?
FWIW, Global Poker's parent company VGW also owns Chumba Casino and LuckyLand Slots.
Will be pretty interesting to see what happens as Global's parent company has Ryan Seacrest sponsoring their main slots site and is making huge money so the ripple effect could kill their golden goose
Seems the CEO is also raising some eyebrows, at least in AUS.
https://www.afr.com/companies/games-and-...
Copy paste relevant section:
But the biggest threat to emerge has been more recent. In October, authorities in Michigan announced a crackdown on Virtual Gaming Worlds’ rival, Golden Hart. The company quickly left the state. In January, Michigan gaming regulators said they had sent cease-and-desist letters to three operators, including Virtual Gaming Worlds, ruling they were not operating legally.
Escalante says Virtual Gaming Worlds wrote back to the Michigan authorities defending the game. By then, he says, “we had already decided to exit the state”.
Other states have been unable to confirm whether sweepstakes games such as Chumba Casino operate legally in their jurisdiction.
“Social casinos is a term of art ... and is not a legal definition,” Allison Inserro, of the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, says. “Regardless of the name an entity gives itself or its offerings, the actual actions and contests will determine whether the activities are conducted in compliance with state and federal law.”
New Jersey, along with regulators in Florida say they cannot confirm or deny the existence of any investigations into the business operations of Virtual Gaming Worlds. Authorities in Arizona say any forms of online gambling in the state – other than sports betting and fantasy sports – are illegal.
Interesting that WPT just announced a new site using the sweepstakes model to launch in 2025, ClubWPT Gold, with Brad Owen and others as ambassadors.
Their exclusion list is nearly identical to Global (Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Washington & Quebec) but does not include Connecticut - where Global has recently withdrawn after DraftKings introduced their regulated Electric Poker option.
I'm curious which we see first, a legal challenge of the sweepstakes model or pressure put on the payment providers that players are using to deposit. Either way, we can't be far off from this coming to a head.
I'm curious which we see first, a legal challenge of the sweepstakes model or pressure put on the payment providers that players are using to deposit. Either way, we can't be far off from this coming to a head.
I think they will target payment providers first; while working on targeting the sweepstakes model.
I don't think anyone is duped by their wording to make it 'legal'. I think as players; we just shut up about it, because if you're using the website, you don't want to draw negative attention to it. (Myself? I say f--- it, I'll tell the truth and let the cards fall where they may).
I think they are abusing the legal terminology; there is effectively no difference between them and a regular casino (legally); and I also think they will be shut down in short order because of it.
I also fall on the side of not very legit RNG. Something is off about it; I can't put my finger on it. I do believe someone will come out and explain it; and everyone will have that moment of realization. Whoever knows precisely what is going on; would illuminate the landscape as if it was the sun upon revelation of said 'what'. (BF corp may be part of that explanation).
I think it's in pokers best interest to expand the regulated sites to all states; and to get rid of unregulated sites. (Regardless of any shenanigans that may or may not be occurring)
I'm curious which we see first, a legal challenge of the sweepstakes model or pressure put on the payment providers that players are using to deposit. Either way, we can't be far off from this coming to a head.
Apparently VGW has already been challenged in two states.
"Increasingly more individuals are suing Escalante’s company, alleging it is operating illegally. So far, they have not been successful. One case in Florida, demanding Virtual Gaming Worlds be barred from operating ion the state, was dismissed after the court ruled that the plaintiff could not remain anonymous. In June, an Ohio plaintiff, Curtis Holcomb, lost a similar claim."
Do you mean congress getting involved? Seems i-gaming laws have been left up to states.
I think they will target payment providers first; while working on targeting the sweepstakes model.
I don't think anyone is duped by their wording to make it 'legal'. I think as players; we just shut up about it, because if you're using the website, you don't want to draw negative attention to it. (Myself? I say f--- it, I'll tell the truth and let the cards fall where they may).
I think they are abusing the legal terminology; there is effectively no difference between them and a regular casino
They will target payment providers first?
who is 'they'? you seem confused, there's no evidence of government targeting anything. You posted an article about a lobbying group *asking* states to investigate sweepstakes sites and whether they comply with state internet gaming regulations.
The payment providers are american banks/debit cards which are also available as depo methods on other unregulated sites for americans ACR and ignition. Global Poker doesn't do crypto.
So if they were targeting payment providers they would be going for all offshore sites I guess.
Excuse me Ralph, but you're coming at me all wrong, and you really shouldn't.
The article stated who. (First) state regulators, who will then ask (second) the DOJ.
In other industries, like the marijuana industry; their modus operandi is made clear. They target payment providers, then they target the business itself.
The way our government goes after any group is likely the same way they'll go after the online sweeps casinos.
Did you actually read the article?
Apparently VGW has already been challenged in two states.
"Increasingly more individuals are suing Escalante’s company, alleging it is operating illegally. So far, they have not been successful. One case in Florida, demanding Virtual Gaming Worlds be barred from operating ion the state, was dismissed after the court ruled that the plaintiff could not remain anonymous. In June, an Ohio plaintiff, Curtis Holcomb, lost a similar claim."
Do you mean congress getting involved? Seems i-gaming laws have
I think all it takes is a little pressure and credit card companies like Visa fold and stop doing business with the sweepstakes sites.
That could come either in the form of an AG from a big state, i.e. NY, or the AGs of a few states putting out a joint press release. If these sites lose credit card deposits business gets significantly harder.
Most banks and credit card company's will fold easier then cheap suits. Hell in Canada most banks and credit card company's already won't do poker transactions and online poker is still legal to play here. Only two banks offer poker transactions. CIBC and BMO. I use CIBC but heard BMO does as well.
Cheers!!!
Most banks and credit card company's will fold easier then cheap suits. Hell in Canada most banks and credit card company's already won't do poker transactions and online poker is still legal to play here. Only two banks offer poker transactions. CIBC and BMO. I use CIBC but heard BMO does as well.
Cheers!!!
Never had an issue in almost 20 years with TD
I have had issues TD, Scotiabank and RBC. Then asked others and ran a Google search which all provided CIBC and BMO as my best options. No issues since.
PS. Tbf I also haven't had to deposit in quite a number of years. Maybe TD policy has changed since then.
Cheers!!!
Most banks and credit card company's will fold easier then cheap suits. Hell in Canada most banks and credit card company's already won't do poker transactions and online poker is still legal to play here. Only two banks offer poker transactions. CIBC and BMO. I use CIBC but heard BMO does as well.
Cheers!!!
Who cares about banks and credit card companies when sweepstakes bundles are being bought and swapped by depositing Crypto ?
WPT launching under this model in 46 states and Canada. I imagine if they get no pushback all other big ops will do the same
Sports Betting Alliance Aligns with California Tribes Against Sweepstakes, Unregulated Gaming
The Sports Betting Alliance, which represents FanDuel, DraftKings, Fanatics Sportsbook, and BetMGM, is in step with California tribal leadership and its campaign to stamp out unregulated gaming in California.
Kudon said it is incredibly frustrating to work for months, or years, on a gaming bill, see its passage, and then have sweepstakes companies come into a state to offer their brand of unregulated gaming with no barrier to entrance or requirements for licensing.
Why would the Sports Betting Alliance sit back and allow the presence of this type of gaming in a state when legal operators, such as DraftKings or FanDuel, pay millions in licensing fee, pay high tax rates on their revenues, and are required to abide by a long list of regulations and compliances?
“It’s a huge point of frustration,” Kudon said.
Sports Betting Alliance Aligns with California Tribes Against Sweepstakes, Unregulated Gaming
Thanks for posting.
FanDuel, DraftKings, etc are so sleazy. They tried to pull a fast one on the tribes with two 2023 California sports betting measures named “ tribal protection gaming act” and “sports wagering regulation and tribal gaming protection act” as if these measures would have benefited tribes instead of seizing market share from them.
Now that failed, they’ve teamed up with them as it’s their only path into the state.
Sweepstakes sites are cooked. They are doing everything they can do to get them out of California. States like Louisiana, Michigan, Connecticut and Pennsylvania have all recently sent cease and desist letters to sweepstakes operators. I'd expect in the next 6 months we see at least another 5-10 states gone. I doubt that a site like WPT Gold is going to still launch in a few months when more and more states are not an option, especially California.
