PLAY RECORDING
  • Sale!

Overview:

By repealing the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in a 6-3 decision last 2018, the Supreme Court cleared the way for U.S. federal states to legalize sports gambling. The act, which previously defined the legal status of sports betting in the U.S., was found unconstitutional on the grounds of states’ rights. With the decision, states have been given the freedom to decide the legality and limitations of sports betting within their borders. However, with the ever changing legal climate, any initiative taken going forward will tremendously impact the industry as a whole.

In this LIVE Webcast, a seasoned panel of thought leaders and professionals brought together by The Knowledge Group will provide the audience with an in-depth analysis of the recent developments in sports gambling and betting. Speakers will also present important issues surrounding this topic including the implications of the court’s ruling and an outlook of future trends.

Key topics include:

  • Sports Gambling – An Overview
  • The Supreme Court’s PASPA Decision
  • Status of Sports Gambling in Each State
  • Opportunities and Limitations
  • What Lies Ahead

Credit:

Course Level:

Intermediate

 

Advance Preparation:

Print and review course materials

 

Method of Presentation:

On-demand Webcast (CLE)

 

Prerequisite:

General knowledge of gambling law

 

Course Code:

148680

 

NY Category of CLE Credit:

Areas of Professional Practice

 

Total Credits:

1.5 CLE


CLE State Requirements:

https://knowledgewebcasts.com/cle-state-requirements/

Speaker Panel:

William P. Devereaux, Principal
Pannone Lopes Devereaux & O'Gara LLC

William P. Devereaux is a Principal with Pannone Lopes Devereaux & O’Gara LLC and leads the firm’s Criminal Defense Team.  He is a prominent and highly respected litigator with over 35 years of experience successfully representing high-profile individuals and public, private and nonprofit organizations. Attorney Devereaux routinely appears before state and federal courts and administrative agencies in defense of his clients. He has extensive experience in gaming law and regulations and has represented developers, municipalities and Native American Tribes with respect to gaming, licensing, permitting and contracting issues involving state and federal laws and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. He has been recognized by his peers and judges with the AV Preeminent rating from Martindale Hubbell, which is the highest rating based on both legal ability and ethics, and selected annually by his peers and clients to the list of “Best Lawyers in America” and Super Lawyers in his practice area. He earned his JD from Suffolk University School of Law and his undergraduate degree from Wesleyan University. He is also a retired Captain in the United States Naval Reserve. He is admitted to practice law in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, the U.S. District Courts for the Districts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, the First Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Military Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Dennis M.P. Ehling, Partner
Blank Rome LLP

Dennis has significant experience representing clients in the highly-regulated gaming industry including both transactional and litigation matters, as well as handling complex confidential investigations and regulatory proceedings. He has particular knowledge in the area of online gaming and wagering, sports wagering and regulation, and eSports, and represents clients in, and counsels clients on the regulatory and business implications of:

  • new media, markets, and technologies
  • licensing
  • financing
  • mergers and acquisitions
  • sweepstakes and promotions
  • electronic payment facilities (including traditional and blockchain)

In addition, Dennis advocates on behalf of gaming entrepreneurs and operators in all types of civil litigation, including:

  • securities disputes
  • intellectual property disputes
  • antitrust disputes
  • contractual disputes
  • criminal investigations

His clients include well-known casino operators, gaming equipment manufacturers, racing and wagering operators, internet operators, Native American gaming interests, professional sports teams, payment providers, vendors, investment funds, and other companies that invest in, or provide services to, the gaming or racing industry.

Adam L. Marchuk, Partner
Perkins Coie LLP

Trial attorney Adam Marchuk handles intellectual property and complex commercial cases. Adam has served as first-chair trial counsel, second-chair trial counsel, and a member of trial teams in patent infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, fraud, and breach of contract cases. He has led and played significant roles on cases in a variety of industries, including healthcare, life sciences and medical device, food and beverage, software and electronics, winning more than $40 million for clients when representing plaintiffs, and defeating hundreds of millions in damages claims when representing defendants. He also has led, and successfully argued, multiple federal appeals.

Adam also has gained substantial experience in the areas of internet and casino gaming and sports wagering. In 2019, Adam testified to the Illinois House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee, on the Illinois Sports Wagering Act.

Agenda:

SEGMENT 1: William P. DevereauxPrincipal Pannone Lopes Devereaux & O'Gara LLC

  • Early days of horse racing “betting” to the late 90’s; mob sanctioned “bookies” and all that entails;
  • Last part of the 20th century and changes in public attitude, i.e. “Super Bowl”, “March Madness”;
  • Proliferation of weekly college and NFL football cards, and the major influence of state lotteries, fantasy football growth;
  • How courts, law enforcement react  – light sentences, etc.
  • Dramatic shift in public support for sports gambling between 2010 and 2014 – four states had already been “grandfathered in” and were exempt from Federal anti-gambling laws (Nevada, Montana, Delaware and Oregon).
  • Finally, the State of New Jersey passing a law allowing sports gambling which triggered a case that ultimately was decided by the Supreme Court - Murphy v. NCAA.

SEGMENT 2: Dennis M.P. EhlingPartner Blank Rome LLP

Legislation highlights:

  1. In 2020, we are seeing legislation and regulation moving quickly, where it can, especially when facing a deadline
    1. Virginia
    2. Maryland
    3. Michigan
  2. Most states enacting new legislation are allowing mobile sports wagering
    1. NJ, PA, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Colorado, Michigan, VA, Maryland, West VA, Tennessee – and single-operators states New Hampshire, Oregon (lottery/SB Tech), Rhode Island – even when not allowing online casino gaming (except NJ and PA)
    2. But not Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico.
    3. The reason is simple:  sports wagering is a lower-margin business than casino gaming and operators have successfully argued in these states that broadly-available sports wagering is the most economically viable (and most lucrative tax source). and that mobile sports wagering should be broadly-available to combat the black-market sites.
    4. Competing interests:
      1. Online vs. In-Person sign-up requirements – ease expansion/increase revenue vs. supporting brick & mortar establishments
        1. Horse racing example
      2. Mobile-only licensees vs. Only casino licensees
  3. Wagering on college sports?  To allow or not allow?
  4. New York, California, Florida, Texas have not really moved
    1. New York – 4 upstate casinos see retail gaming; little progress on expanding availability throughout the state; tied to down-state casino expansion; some legislators trying to put into budget; Gov Cuomo not supportive; will likely require referendum to amend NY constitution
    2. California – Political quagmire; a group of tribes, led by Pechanga band of Luiseno Indians (Temecula, CA) have proposed a ballot initiative (which would allow sports wagering at 5 physical tribal locations and racetracks, but not card clubs, and would allow tribes to expand to offer craps and roulette games), and are reportedly about ½ of the way to getting required number of signatures – deadline in mid-June; if not passed this year, another initiative could not be proposed to voters until 2022.  Support is hardly universal – only 18 of 65 CA tribes support it, competing legislative constitutional amendment (ACA 16, SCA 6) could blunt it, card rooms (which have a local community political base) and pro stadiums are excluded, and would not allow statewide mobile gaming, and would bar wagering on college sports.
    3. Florida – Negotiations ongoing with Seminole Tribe to give it exclusivity over sports betting in Florida, as part of trying to solve a quagmire created by (1) a 2016 US District Court ruling that Florida breached tribal exclusivity on banked card games by allowing pari-mutuel facilities to use a designated player system as a workaround, and (2) a 2018 ballot initiative passed by voters that requires any expansion of gambling outside tribes and the lottery to be initiated by voters, not the legislature.
    4. Texas – Efforts in the 86th Legislative Session died in 2019.  The Texas Legislature does not meet in 2020, and Texas lawmakers have repeatedly shown hesitancy to support any kind of casino expansion (see fantasy sports)
  5. Data control
    1. Official league statistics
      1. More legislatures recently are tending to give some primacy to official league data, but see NJ, PA
    2. Ownership of wagering data
      1. Integrity
      2. Commercial benefit
    3. Ownership of customer data (particularly in contracted operator states)
  6. Impact of COVID-19

SEGMENT 3: Adam L. MarchukPartner Perkins Coie LLP

  • Key Issues re: State Legislation
    • Online v. in-person registration for mobile wagering
      • In general, most stakeholders support mobile wagering
      • NY/PA (as examples) show that majority of wagering is online/mobile
      • A key issue in most states debating/passing sports wagering legislation is whether to allow residents to register for internet/mobile wagering online, or require in-person registration at tracks/casino
      • Discuss policy objectives/arguments behind both approaches
        • Online: drive revenue for state; covert bettors from offshore accounts
        • In-persons: drive casino patronage, local investment and employment; measured approach to new form of (internet) gambling
      • Use data from NJ/PA (which allow online registration) v. Iowa (which requires in-person registration) and recent surveys about bettor attitudes regarding in-person registration
      • Look at conversion rate of DFS players to mobile sports betters as reasons to support/object to online registration
    • Market access: Pure online licenses v. contract with casinos/tracks
      • Most states require online operators to have contract with brick and mortar casinos/track to gain market assess
      • Some states allow/will allow co-branding and/or online licensees to operate independently
    • Other potential issues:
      • Licensee fees (high/potentially prohibitive in some states)
      • Use of official league data
  • Key Trends: Customer Acquisition Strategies
    • Significant DFS-sports betting crossover
    • Potential cross-selling with Casino gaming (where allowed)
    • Increasing agreements with media outlets (e.g., Penn National and Barstool Sports) to increase market reach and advertising base

Date & Time:

Friday, May 29, 2020

3:00 pm to 4:30 pm (ET)

Materials:

Download Course Materials

Who Should Attend:

  • Gambling and Gaming Law Attorneys
  • Online Gambling Operators and Regulators
  • Sports Betting Site Administrators and Managers
  • General Counsel
ImageNameCategory

SPEAKERS

William P. DevereauxPrincipal
Pannone Lopes Devereaux & O'Gara LLC
Dennis M.P. EhlingPartner
Blank Rome LLP
Adam L. MarchukPartner
Perkins Coie LLP

RELATED WEBCASTS

SUBSCRIPTION PACKAGES

ALL-ACCESS PASS

View Details

CLE LAW MONTHLY

View Details

CPE FINANCE MONTHLY

View Details

Join Over 150,000 Professionals Empowering Their Careers

Learn anywhere from over 1800+ live and recorded CLE CPE & Technology webcasts.