Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A daily podcast delving into the biggest stories of the day throughout the sports betting and igaming sector.
:
Prediction markets have taken over the sports betting industry discourse in the last 12 months, and frankly, with all the court cases, pieces of legislation, and lobbying going on, things can be very confusing indeed. So today on iGaming Daily, we enlist the help of a genuine legal expert to give us a picture of what the lay of the land is on prediction markets, and how the role of the CFTC has evolved since Mike Sealy came in as chair. Welcome back to iGaming Daily, supported by Optimove, the creator of positionless marketing and the number one player engagement solution for sports betting and iGaming operators. Today I'm joined by SBC America's senior reporter, Tom Nightingale and the president of IMGL, Mark Dunbar. Mark, thanks ever so much for joining us. How are you doing today? I'm fabulous. Thanks for, uh, for letting us participate. We're looking forward to the discussion. Fantastic. And Tom, thanks for coming on. How are you? Yeah, I'm all right. I'm excited to have a sort of bona fide expert talking prediction markets with us. Cause as you know, my, coverage of prediction markets mainly extends to basically trying to keep up with the endless flow of news. It'll be good to tap in a little bit deeper. Fantastic. Well, Mark, I'm sure this is something that you've been keeping a close eye on in the last 12 months or so, because it's a, it's kind of taken a lot of industry attention, just before we dive into things properly, could I just get your initial thoughts of how much this has just shifted the landscape in the last year or so? yeah, it is definitely sort of taking the gaming industry by storm and those of us in the international master goods of gaming law over in IMGL, it dominates all of our conversations, whether we are at conferences or just chatting with one another because... our clients all over the globe are trying to figure out what is this and do they have to take it seriously? Is this, is this going to be a flash in the pan or is this the master evolution of the, the next and most important mousetrap that you have to have in your arsenal? And so it is every day, all day, you know, people are paying attention to what's coming out of the courts across the United States. and out of regulators around the world as they try to get their arms around what exactly it means to have prediction markets in your marketplace, essentially cannibalizing the regulated market. No, for sure. It's been a bit of a whirlwind period. Now there's so much to cover on today's show. I think we're going to have to take somewhat of an assumed position that our audience understands prediction markets and understands some of the some of the cases that are ongoing when it comes to prediction markets in the US. There are certain federal cases ongoing and state cases ongoing. I think a nice place to start might be the CFTC itself because the new chair, Mike Selig, seems to be on a bit of a journey when it comes to prediction markets, Tom. think it's fair to say, isn't it? His position has changed in recent weeks. And now the CFTC itself is filing an amicus brief in one of the cases, the crypto.com case. Mark, perhaps you could just start there for us and maybe outline what that means at its core and what will So let me tell you, if I was a parent... and Mike Selig and the CFTC were a child, I would have them back in front of the psychologist or the psychiatrist asking them to reevaluate the medication that they put them on. Because you have a complete change in personalities that have occurred throughout the year. And I don't say it lightly. I mean, you're talking about a body that went from the prior administration that essentially viewed prediction markets as the anathema of... wagering in the United States that everything they could to run it out, all of the platforms tried to push them out of the country where they had to physically relocate headquarters to try and avoid the sanctions by the FTC and the dominoes of the rest of the federal government and state governments that viewed them as not appropriate within our jurisdiction, only to have after the election a pivot of sorts and a a leader that was thought to head the CFTC only to be yanked back because he was appeared to be too close to the industry. And so they thought there was okay, there was going to be now there's a pivot back to a, you know, from we're against to or for to now maybe we're back to against to our neutral. then even when the chairman chose to go through the his Senate confirmation, he himself appears to need to, you know, check his meds because he was pretty clear in his testimony that neutrality, I guess, was where he was going to be didn't feel like that it was appropriate for him to comment on cases didn't really have an opinion, etc. Despite everybody knowing the backgrounds of these folks, I don't want to condemn somebody because they have a background. You know, it's like saying somebody that can't be an effective gambling regulator, because at some point, they may have been involved in the industry or something. think knowledge of of an industry is actually the trade of a good regulator. But then for him to jump in the deep end with a giant cannonball and splash all the unsuspecting sunbathers with the, not only are we going to get in, we're going to be now become an advocate um in favor of these platforms really has everybody wondering what in the world is going on in the federal government. And, you know, did he lie to the US Senate, you know, or, or, you know, and, only that, where is it coming from? Then again, you know, not to to be all conspiratorial and you know, like, like uh other folks and the media like to do and turn this into speculation on what's happening in the administration. But I will tell you for my brethren in the international masters of gaming law who are trying to make sense of this and interpret us statutes and us cases and all of these cases that are going on across the country to advise clients on what they should be doing. We are very much scratching our head to say we can't. I mean, we don't know where this is going to go. And if you, if for those listeners that are listening to this podcast, you want to go back in time several months to where, when I was on with Jess, when we were talking about what I saw coming, I said it was going to be choppy waters. And we were in this for at least two years before ultimately the resolution is going to happen in the United States Supreme court. We can sort of see it. We know it's going all these state court cases and federal court cases as entertaining as they are weekly to be like, Oh, the worm turned this way. I've much for my clients. I'm just saying. stay calm, keep proceeding ahead. What was Churchill's adage during World War II? Just tell everybody that you just got to breathe deeply, compete in the market and know that it's going to be resolved probably in another 18 months. Maybe. we're lucky, it might be 18 months. That's right. Yeah. Tom, it's certainly something that you're wondering and maybe scratching your head about all the time as well, covering this on site as you are. I know Mike Selig's 180 turn has been something that you've been particularly interested in, isn't it? Yeah. mean, you can't help but wonder now that when he was in front of the Agriculture Committee and he's saying, I will look to the courts on this, presumably he meant he was ironing up the front door and he was working out how he was going to get involved because it's not just to me reporting on it. seems like it's not just... know, there are changes of tone and there are changes of tone on there. This is a full, seems to be a sort of a full throttle embrace, I guess, of the CFT, the future of the CFTC being somebody who intersects, you know, an agency that intercedes on these, on this litigation, let alone sort of seeing how it plays out or whatever, you know, again, Mark said about not wanting to speculate on things, but I don't know whether it's that this was always the intention and you're just not going to voice that while you haven't been confirmed or if they, you know, I imagine there's a great deal of internal pressure from the, you the administration that isn't charged in the U S at the moment, given there are some ties between prediction market companies and, the, you know, the white house never puts any pressure on anybody. No, that's not, that doesn't go on. It's amazing how quickly you get jaded, I think. I'm almost already not surprised that this has happened. Welcome to my world. If you look over my shoulder, that big building right there is the Florida State Capitol. So that's where I live. So growing up in a political family and lobbying is an important part of my practice. Jaded is how I wake up in the morning, unfortunately. And the president is a former client of mine. it also is, I'm not... Yeah, but but pivots pivots do happen pivots do happen. The one thing that I do I will say in all of this if you if you back up like forget all the cases and everything like that at the end of the day, this is going to sound really weird because you know, everybody's focused on ceiling and this change. At the end of the day, the see the the CFTCs opinion is as valuable as mine. It doesn't matter at all. When it gets up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is going to look at the the creation statute of the CFTC. And it isn't gonna care what Selig's opinion is or the opinion of the Biden administration or the Trump administration, frankly. They're gonna look at those words and they're gonna apply them to precedent that goes all the way back to frankly, before the founding of our country. Because if you understand the way gaming was, there were gambling laws that we brought over from the UK, from the Commonwealth, right? From the UK, the statute, A.N. and others that were in our territories before they even became states. um And then that body of law allowing the colonies to essentially define themselves on what, you know, what they wanted to be. And then you fast forward all the way through to what I will say is the more modern gambling in the United States, which really began post, post civil war. A lot of the Southern States were forced to have carpet bearer constitutions post 1868, where they had anti-lottery provisions that restricted the South's ability to rebuild. despite the fact that the Northern States were allowed to have lotteries. And then there were restrictions about interstate lottery sales and all of these kinds of things. These are gonna be very important when it ultimately gets to the United States Supreme Court to say, in our federalist country that is states first, federal government small and constrained, what does that mean historically as things have evolved? And I think what's gonna wind up happening is led by Justice Roberts. They're gonna take a deep breath and they're gonna say, the history of the United States is a history from the colonies to the states to today of gambling regulated at the state level that the states decide what is appropriate as it relates to that vice within their borders. And if the federal government wants to do it, it knows how to expressly legalize interstate activity. And there is only one. interstate gambling activity that has been expressly legalized in the United States and that's interstate horse racing and what the CFTC is hanging their hat on despite the fact that commodity trading in the 1930s was prohibited in some states because it was gambling despite that fact and and the creation of commodities trading I believe the Supreme Court is going to say If they want to legalize interstate wagering on prediction markets, they know exactly what to do. They just need to copy the Interstate Horse Racing Act. Other than that, not going to, you know, you know, innuendo and regulatory action, expand the reach of a relatively new federal agency. That's just not what the Supreme Court, if you look at all of the things that they have done to constrain agencies. I don't think that they're going to reward this agency in this industry um like the prediction market tech bros are hoping. think it's a really, really important point to make because for some of our global listeners who might not be so clued up on the US federal system or the state system, might not be aware that because the CFTC is in favor of these prediction markets, they might think that... Well, they've got the green light and they can go ahead, but I think it's really important to clarify that this is going to go to all this. We can assume that it's going to go to the Supreme Court. em we've seen this week already that the Supreme Court doesn't always go in favor of the administration, but maybe that's for another conversation. Mark, Tom, we'll take a short break and we'll come back and we'll continue the discussion. Welcome back to iGaming Daily today. We're putting prediction markets in the spotlight m and we're joined by the president of the IMGL, Mark Dunbar. m Mark, I wanted to touch on some of the big cases that we've seen across the United States so far because we might not be able to get around to them all because as you said earlier, there's so many, let's look. Calchi and Tom, look, you'd have covered a lot of these, so feel free to jump in as well. Calchi has been granted preliminary injunctions in some states. think Tennessee was the most recent. Could you just give us a bit of a rundown of what's happening in those specific ones where Calchi has been granted those injunctions? Yeah, it frankly is a little difficult to thread it together. Right. But what I will tell you is you have a, an amalgamation of three federal circuits. And that really is what matters. I mean, I know people were focused on, oh, it's in a state, but really what you're, need to focus on is how it's going to go to the, to the Supreme court. And so you have three federal circuits that are essentially in. But I would say transitioning transitioning positions with Kalash being able to operate. with injunctions against enforcement in some, and you know, and not be able to operate like in the, I think it's the first circuit or the second. Frankly, it doesn't matter right now, but the Northeastern, you know, because of Maryland's opinion. what I will say is if you're trying to figure out where to go in the prediction market landscape, what you got to realize is you could pretty much go anywhere. ah While these injunctions have been issued against enforcement, for the most part, even in the areas where enforcement is permitted, there's no mechanism for the regulator to really stop anything because the enforcement mechanism revolves around the federal government's assistance. And you look in the state of Michigan, for example, the state of Michigan has been very hawkish going after iGaming operations, not just prediction markets, but a whole host of them. we've talked about them before really to go after the offshore folks. You've got to have cooperation from the federal government. And we've had it lot of our conferences, you know, the, the joint ones with SBC, the, IMGL conferences, um, that they, in, order for them really to, get what they need, they need a black Friday kind of event. Like what happened with internet poker. And if you're not going to have the assistance of the feds starting to, to arrest people, when they're getting off planes, it's not gonna matter. um So, again, I don't mean to gloss over, but for everybody that's trying to track the cases, as if that should matter as your day-to-day business strategy, I wouldn't. It's just too much and it's too unpredictable because, I'll give you another example. The opinion out of California. um there was an affirmative action that was brought in California in Silicon Valley to try and stop these. Well, the judge on the case's own son is a tech bro. Like, mean, her day in, day out activity is running into people that are all somehow tied into this. There was no shock when she said, no, we're not going to go against the platforms. I mean, we're just, we're not going to do it. So that's what I'm saying is. You have home cooking that's going on with some of these judges and they don't really care because these trial judges know they're quickly just moving it up to the appellate circuit anyway. So everybody knows where this is going. It's just really the speed with which you can get these cases tried and positioned to whether or not you can catch the nothing's going to be in front of the 2026 US Supreme Court. And you get there in 27. Can you argue the case in 27 in the hopes of getting a 27 opinion? And right now, with every one of these injunctions, it gets entered, it triggers an acceleration point, but you still, someone's got to really put the one of these appellate circuits has to put their foot on the gas or I don't think it's going to make it into the 27. I think we're pushing into 28. I didn't, that was a little bit of a duck around the actual, but I hope that helps the listeners to, you know, I think sometimes we get too tied up in the minutia. Yeah, absolutely does. And I think when we're dealing with so many cases, it only amplifies that, right? Because, Tom, you're following this every day. You are one of those people who are trying to keep up with all this. It must be quite a complex task for you to do so. those are the ones where we have had preliminary injunctions. We look at Nevada, Massachusetts, Maryland, slightly different cases over there. There's so many things going on. How do you... look at all these different rulings and different opinions in different states. I mean, I will say like on the big picture side of things as a uh gambling industry journalist, like the scope of our coverage and our jobs seems to have doubled, tripled in the last year or so, you know, what is gambling? You know, so we have constant, it's interesting, we have constant internal conversations about almost all you know what what what is actually newsworthy in this news cycle for prediction markets. Because I think that it's so to Mark's point, it's so easy to get bogged down with, you know, the the the nitty gritty and the tiny details of things, you know, like, stays being administrative stays being granted and denied and stuff in, you know, in the grand scheme of things is sort of a drop in the ocean that doesn't really make a ripple, I think, really, and given given the full news cycle. But obviously what's been in, you know, it's, it's, it's actually very appropriate that we're talking about this right now, because I have paused writing about Koushi preemptively suing, uh, the attorney general and the governor of Utah to record this podcast, shows how quickly this news, you know, this news cycle sort of moves. What has been interesting from my point, you know, covering it as somebody who doesn't have the legal expertise, obviously goes without saying that Mark has is, um, to see some of the rationale behind the different decisions in different States, you know, like we had, for example, judge Andrew Gordon in Nevada. know, granting Kalshi the preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order and then later dissolving it, think calling then upon his own ruling in the crypto.com case as rationale, new law, I think he described it as that needs to now be taken into account. These sorts of things that uh essentially a lay person on the legal side of things like myself is very interesting to see how the dots kind of connect from state to state or how in some cases, maybe they don't connect from state to state. Um, I don't know if Mark has any thoughts on some of the, maybe, maybe the major threads that we've seen throughout this sort of mess of. Yeah, there definitely are some major threads and here's where I'll tell you judges are political animals, particularly the federal judges. know, they, they, you hit, once you get to be a federal trial judge, you know, you have a robe for life, but you're always eyeing the ability to go up. And so you're, you, you pay attention to the ripples of the, that are going on and also the waves inside the administration to say, okay, if I rule against the administration, what does that mean for my long-term ability to go up? JD Vance is tied to Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel is tied to industry. You know, all of these kinds of things definitely enter the psyche of somebody that is 40 something, 50 something years old that thinks they may have a shot to either get to this, this, the circuit court of appeals or even. audition for the US Supreme Court. that that again, these are political animals and they pay attention to what's going on elsewhere. The common thread that I will tell you is everybody recognizes this as a novel case. There is nothing squarely on point to dispose of it. These trial judges also know if you when you read the opinions that basically they're making it up. Now, when I say they're making it up, there is precedent, you know, that they're relying on and all this other kind of stuff, but they know that the opinions that they're writing are going to be tossed in the waste paper basket when they get to the circuit court of appeals. No one is going to say, the learning judge in the Southern district of fill in the blank opined as follows. As soon as it gets up to the circuit court of appeals, those judges are even more political animals, ah particularly because a lot of these have been appointed. post filibuster. So a lot, so you got a lot of 51 vote judges that are up on the circuit courts of appeals. So they, they are going to do what they feel like when it gets up there. So what I will, what I will, you know, for me, I I'm intrigued by let's how quickly a judge will move to just move and realize that none of these trial judges matter, move it on up and, and, and get it off their docket. You know, someone is going to want to write the, you know, the long opinion that maybe Justice Roberts will use as the basis, but that's only because of the ego. It's not because it's not gonna happen. Nobody in this US Supreme Court is gonna care what any of these judges say at the end of the day. It's going to be argued de novo in front of the United States Supreme Court. It is going to be an important opinion as it relates to our federal system. And it is gonna have far reaching implications that have nothing to do with gambling and have everything to do. with how a federal regulator can step in and essentially stomp on states' rights to determine what is legal or illegal as it relates to vices within their community. That's really at the end of the day, what this is gonna come. And one of the things that I think is really interesting is so at the end of April, IMGL has our annual conference and it happens to be in Washington, DC, intentionally selected. We wanted to go to DC because we knew it was going to be getting hotter and hotter and hotter and we invited Sea League. to come and he's done, he ducked it. He ducked the invite, which I thought was interesting. Now there are other people from the administration that are going to be invited, but to be able to speak in front of a group of gambling lawyers from around the world about what you're doing legally, right, is you can't sound bite it, right? Like if he did come, it would be an interesting, know, I mean, of course we'd be respectful, he's chairman of the CFTC, but he would be asked very, nuanced and questions by the best lawyers in the world that know this industry frontwards and backwards and even questions over a cocktail are going to be something that is way deeper than that op-ed that he put in the Wall Street Journal. mean, that document, whoever wrote it, bless their hearts is all I have to say because I mean, I would be embarrassed if that's the thing that you use to defend your position, recognizing that you're essentially federalizing gambling on everything across the country and that's the best you got. That was a disappointing document in my opinion. It's absolutely fascinating that there's so many moving parts and then we have all of this going on with the CFTC. As you say, Mark, this of does transcend just what we're talking about in a gambling context. This is much more fundamental about... the federal versus the state system in the US and we're just humble gambling journalists. This is crazy for us. was very interesting actually to hear, to intervene for a second. uh Cesar's CEO, Tom Reeg and AMGM Resorts' Bill Hornbuckle actually raised these points on earnings calls, think, summer, late summer sort of time, and they made that point that Obviously they have their own positions, you they're quite closely tied to Nevada, gaming, state gaming licenses, everybody has a position. But I mean, they voiced that opinion as well, that this is in some ways perhaps being mischaracterized uh as a gam, like a sort of gambling regulatory issue. When actually the it's, it's arguably the very, I think Mark put it well, it's arguably the very crux of it is, you know, fundamental federal versus state rights and regulations. So how does something like that not end up? in the Supreme Court really, when you take a step back and look at it. And this is the wrong court to be in front of. mean, you know, our Supreme Court, everybody likes to say, oh, it's, you know, it's a Republican court at 6-3 and, you know, oh, the Republicans are always going to win. That is not the case. For those of us lawyers, right, that like, you know, really pay attention. And this is a 3-3-3 court. You have, you have three judges and oddly enough, who is in that third bucket kind of changes because you have Kavanaugh and Gorsuch that are hopping in and out. But these judges, and you, if you look at them, one, they're obviously brilliant. ah But two, they understand better than anybody, the fabric of the federalist system. And you definitely have six judges that were brought up in. from kind of the Scalia-ish school and Rehnquist school of states' rights are incredibly important. And if you read the constitution and you read the Federalist papers, there is one very, very important theme is that the federal government has no authority but that which is given, and the states have all authority except for that which is denied. And you start from that premise. And all nine of these judges understand it. understand it very, very, very clearly in a weird way. I could see this being a nine, nothing opinion. Um, that's, that's how, in my opinion, how poor the authority is of the CFTC and relying on the words that were written around the, their creation to say that, Oh, you know, they're in charge of derivative markets and therefore this derivative product is, is, is just absolutely entitled. to be, you know, this self-regulated product that goes nationwide. That's absurd. That's absurd. You have billions and billions and billions of dollars that are tied up. Forget the brick and mortar investments. I'm just talking about the regulatory fabric of gambling in this country. And you're just going to buy a wave of magic wand because everything, as all of the industry has pointed out, everything can now becomes a prediction market. You know, what is the next line? I was I was involved in a in a patent, you know, application process to develop essentially a my line, you know, so that you could configure your own line to a slot machine. Well, just think about it. Now, every everybody gets that. And it's a prediction on whether your line is going to show up on any slot machine, any device anywhere in the world. Forget all the fact that you can bet on, you know, what color dress someone's going to wear on the Oscars, you know, on the Oscar red carpet. I mean, it really, I don't, I don't frankly want to be in a fully deregulated gambling country. I, the parade of horribles that could follow um is, is I think at the end of the day, there are going to be so many amicus briefs that are going be filed in front of the United States Supreme court. And there aren't going to be many of them that are good for the good for, for the calcicide. Like You show me the rainbows and butterflies that someone's going to be talking about from a fully deregulated gambling marketplace for 350 million people. I don't think there's a lot of people that are going be coming out there painting that picture. It's interesting that you brought up the idea of perhaps slot style prediction markets, because I think 12, 13, 14 months ago, we were joking about that potentially being the case. That's very much not a joke and it's something that... I think even Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, was this something that J. Snowden of Penn was perhaps talking about? he called it out, I think a few months ago, wasn't it? said, essentially, won't somebody please think of the gaming companies? Where does it all end? Essentially was the message. Yeah, I'm a gaming lawyer and lobbyist, right? I also do game design. I've designed my own slot machines. I've owned and sold my own brick and mortar gambling facilities. I make money off of the gambling industry. takes care of my family. It's not like I am an anti-gaming crusader. And this isn't about an industry disruption. Gambling, drugs, prostitution, there are no noxious sin industries that have existed since the beginning of time. and every government structure that has ever been created as well as every moral structure that has ever been created to essentially reign in the activities of man have recognized that you need to put guardrails around certain activities. And right at the center of it is this one, right? And uh there needs to be reasonable regulation. Now, look, I can sit here and advocate in a very compelling fashion that we should have a regulated nationwide, fully commingled, you know, sports betting industry in the United States and how that would be good for everybody. Right. But that means a fully regulated 50 state opt in system. So that the liquidity flows and all of the all of the the the good things that you will get from that regulation can make a make a vibrant industry. Not a deregulated or forgive me, self regulated industry. Yeah. Well, Mark, Tom, we're very quickly running out of time, but just before we do wrap up, we talked a lot about the court cases that are going on in the background, and we don't expect this to be over for another 18 months, perhaps the very earliest. But in the meantime, there are some state bills that are coming through seeking to ban prediction markets. Just before we sort of quickly wrap up, uh Mark, do you think that these kind of bills are... somewhat pointless until we get some sort of federal clarity. hundred percent. Yeah, a hundred percent. if, if, you know, if I rolled into nickel G's tomorrow and someone asked me, I would say, waste the time. You know, I mean, I see what you're trying to do, but you're actually not helping anything because I would say, go read the federalist papers and realize the inherent authority that you already have. If you have not legalized it, it's criminalized. Just tell your regulator, do what regulators things. I mean, I've been telling the attorney general of the state of Florida, we don't need legislation. Florida gaming commission, we don't need legislation. Just do your job and enforce the law, right? Now here's the weird thing. My attorney general is one of the few attorney generals in the entire country that hasn't signed on to a position yet. And look, we can speculate as to the why. Our most famous citizen is DJT. He is a Floridian after all. He's got a lot of assets here and a lot of influence and he also has endorsed our attorney general for reelection and things. So that may be one of the reasons why he's one of the six guys that hasn't defended states rights, even though he's jumped in and defended states rights and a whole bunch of other cases. yeah, mean, states don't need these pieces of legislation. They just need to enforce the existing laws that they have on the book and recognize they don't really have much of an enforcement arm to really do anything anyway. I mean, what would be great? I'm gonna say great, but I mean, what would be really interesting is if some state law enforcement actually rolled into the Cal-She headquarters and says, hey, you do realize that what you're doing is organized gambling. So we're gonna go ahead and arrest everybody here. Seize your servers. We're just gonna shut you down. Now that will put kerosene on the fire and accelerate things faster than anything. That's the part that I don't understand. We know where these guys are. State law enforcement could arrest somebody. You know, and for the states that are hosting their servers, they could just go rolling in with their statewide law enforcement and chum down. Um, why that hasn't happened. Not really sure. I'm sure we can speculate, but some much like, much like the, uh, when fantasy leaves were rolling out, there were three us attorneys that were working on a case and then magically some phone calls from Eric Holder and others, and they all just evaporated. Well, if it does happen, if it does ever happen, it make a good follow up podcast. say that. Oh, would be great to have you back. Yeah. It would be great. Well, when that happens, Mark will be the first to invite you on the show. I'm sure you wouldn't have a million other things to do on your to do list. But that's right. That's right. Look, thank you ever so much for joining us, Mark. Absolutely. I to see you in D.C. at the end of April at our conference. Hope you guys can make it. Oh, fantastic. Yeah. Tom, thanks as well for joining us. and to the listeners. Thank you ever so much for tuning into today's episode of iGaming Daily, and come back tomorrow to keep up to date with all the latest global gambling news.