Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A daily podcast delving into the biggest stories of the day throughout the sports betting and igaming sector.
:
News emerged last month that an eighth US state would launch a legal and regulated online casino market. But is Maine actually going to launch? A Churchill Downs lawsuit is casting doubt on Maine's online casino market with the land-based operator suing the state regulator over equal protection laws. So what's happening in Maine and could this suit pour cold water on the entire thing? Welcome back to iGaming Daily, by OptiMove, the creator of positionless marketing and the number one player engagement platform for sports betting and iGaming operators. Learn how OptiMove's positionless marketing is changing how iGaming teams operate. Discover how operators are using OptiMove's positionless marketing platform to launch personalised CRM campaigns, dynamically change casino lobbies and bet slips, and create engaging gamified experiences. You can learn more at OptoMove.com. I'm Charlie Horner and today I'm joined by SBC Media's managing editor, Jessica Wellman. Jess, how are you doing? I'm good, but by the time people listen to this, I'm not going to be the managing editor anymore. I know, I know. It's such a shame, but we're going to bow out. We're going to bow out with pride. I demanded one more pod before I depart SBC for... undisclosed new project you guys will have to tune in for. um you go. Leave everyone on a bit of a cliffhanger there. let's, the first half of the show we'll do as usual, we'll go through the news and then maybe we'll be a little uh bit more loose in the second half of the show. But let's dive into this situation in Maine. Yeah. Why is Churchill Downs taking the Maine state regulator to court? As you'll recall, when we talked about the main bill, this is one that like, it's a win, sort of. Many, many people within the industry did not want this bill. Not just the groups that are like generally anti-online casino like Churchill, Cordish, et cetera. Churchill obviously was though, but like, Fandool was not into it, Fanatics, um lots of people because of the way it's structured. And the way that it's structured is that each of the federally regulated tribes in Maine get one online casino license that they can use. So this is similar to the way sports betting is done in Maine, which hasn't been sued and challenged, keep in mind, uh where DraftKings works with three of them, uh Caesars works with the fourth. And after this law, I mean, we thought Janet Mills would veto it, then she didn't, and so now it's happening. And I think there's lots of push to do whatever they can to get it undone, including this, as well as an attempt to do what's called a people's veto, where you go and get like X percent of the population of Maine to sign a petition saying we want to put on the ballot whether this is a thing or not. In the lawsuit, what Churchill is essentially saying is that this is race-based discrimination. oh Simple yet not, because you probably are saying, well, there are plenty of other states that do tribal related gaming packs all the time, right? So think about Florida, which we discussed to death over the years. That one talked about the servers being on tribal land and the compact was purely about it being on tribal land. There's not language like this in the online casino bill. It's a purely commercial endeavor. They're paying taxes to the state. um It's not like a compacted kind of thing. So it's just a bit of a different structure. And being that it's commercial and not really like part of a compact, Churchill Downs is like, okay, well, why are you not going to let the other commercial casinos, the Penn Casino and the Churchill Downs Casino do this? It seems like discrimination. uh They said over and over in the suit too. We don't want iGaming period in the state, but if you are going to make us have online casinos, we do want to be a part of it. ah If you can't beat them, join them. And so the suit is trying to get them to declare the law, know, unconstitutional, illegal, et cetera, and just undo it, or to at least get them to amend the law so that they can be part of it. It's phenomenal that we spend a good couple of years trying. looking anywhere, any state to launch, regulate, legalise online casino as soon as someone does. It's like, no, no, we don't want that, that's terrible, roll it back. But from what I can gather then, this is not an argument over cannibalisation, which is one of the usual pushbacks against online casino bills. think this is just Churchill Downs trying to protect its turf. Keep in mind they are fresh off. a victory in their ADW court case that maybe they just feel like legally they've done well in pushing things. Let's see what we can do. It could be a Hail Mary, you know, of just like, we really don't want this to happen. Let's try this and see what, you know, what sticks. You know, you're right that it's been a minute since we've gotten one over the finish line, but keep in mind, like, Back in the day when all of those states were just like rapidly pushing through whatever sports regulations. Think about how many times we've been on here talking about operators griping in Illinois, operators griping in New York, all of them being, and some of these are because such as Illinois, they've changed the state of play after the bill was passed. But like New York, there was a point where operators in the industry were granted all sorts of stuff to just get it across the finish line. And this one, as I've mentioned, it benefits very few people. so I think that's why the industry is like, ugh, this is not what we want. Well, it's nice to see that they've actually pushed back a little bit because we've seen the likes of Fanjul and DraftKings complain about the state of play in New York and we we're on record as saying, guys, you signed up to it, you knew what the tax rate was when you signed up and got your licence. Yeah, so I'll just read part of the filing because I think this is quite interesting. uh Promoting iGaming through race-based preferences deals a gut-wrenching blow to main businesses like Oxford Casino that have heavily invested in the state and its people. All these harms have had direct consequence of a race and geography based monopoly. m It's quite strong, isn't it? em But I guess this is Churchill Downs has a long history of being against iGaming in general. em Could you give us a little bit of the background of that and tell us a little bit why Churchill Downs is so against it? Churchill Downs has traditionally always had a relatively anti-iGaming stance. with the exception of advanced deposit wagering horse apps, which are a completely different thing in their mind. They did though, when PASPA was overturned and things started happening, they did try. They did go into the space and give it a go. And they were like, ugh, we are not making any money at this. I think they were like Sportsbook USA or something first. And then they switched to Twin Spires to see if the... popularity of the ADW apps could maybe carry over at all. And now the participation they do in it is if they are in a state where online sports betting or online casinos are allowed and they have licenses at casinos, they will reap the benefit of a partnership agreement, which is what they would do in Maine. They're not gonna launch Twins Buyers Casino. They would go say, hey, FanDuel. You got left out of sports betting. You want to do this with us. That's what they would be doing. And yeah, they are, they're a founding member of the national association against iGaming along with Cordish and a couple of others, because I think it's kind of, you know, the K of the C word. Um, the cannibalization debate gets people hot and bothered. Most, I mean, I know we said it was resolved that it doesn't have an impact. More and more people are doing studies. It seems as someone who doesn't really have a dog in this fight, just looking comprehensively as what's out there, maybe it's not the 17 % that the outliers say, but like, you are going to lose a little bit of business, especially in like a rural place like Maine, where you're schlepping to that casino. It's not like in the middle of the city where it, you know, and so. It's fair, I think, for them to be like, we are going to lose some of our total addressable market because, I mean, and we'll make it up, I guess, in licensing it out. Like we'll still make more money, but this is not that beneficial to us. And this one is especially not beneficial to us because we can't make up the lost ground because we can't go be involved in the online casino industry. for our non-American hosts and listeners, Churchill Downs' portfolio of casinos then is it fair to say that they are quite rural, difficult to get to in parts? Yes and no. I live in the suburbs of Cincinnati, which is a population of a couple million, I think. I don't know off the top of my head. There's a Churchill property, HHR situation, 10 minutes from my house. right outside downtown Cincinnati. There's stuff right in downtown Louisville in Kentucky. It kind of depends. But they are first and foremost a horse racing company. And they are regional, but like there's no Churchill property in Vegas. You know, like they didn't try to get a downstate casino license in New York. That they are largely a regional uh group that just the way that regional casinos are kind of done in the United States. the past 10-15 years they've gotten more urban, but in the years where they were building horse tracks, with a few exceptions, those tend to be kind of not in the middle of town. Okay, that's very useful. At least we have bit of context for that opposition. I guess before we go to a break then, what comes next in this case? And do you think there's actual chance that this bill is rolled back on? No, we've seen these tribal ones go very hit and miss, you know, um taking Florida as an example, that was even like decisions all over the place as we moved up the courts. I don't have a good beat on on this one, but, know, at the very least, it will create a hiccup. uh Like I said, I think seeing that they threw everything at the wall on this. so that trying to stop it, I think this is just throwing something at the wall and they have no idea how much it's gonna necessarily succeed, but at least it's something. So, you know, hard to predict and especially like we've got next is, you know, the tribes and the state are going to have to respond and say, here's why this is fine. And then, you know, rulings, rulings, motions to dismiss weeks and weeks, you know, the drill. I've learned a lot. about the US civics and legal environment of the last few years for sure, but we'll keep up to date with that. So listeners can make sure to keep up to date on SBC Americas. And if there's a significant update, we'll come back on the podcast and let you know about it. But Jess, we'll go for a quick break now and then we'll come back and we'll talk about everyone's favorite prediction markets. Welcome back to iGaming Daily. And as we said at the top of the show, This is Jess's final iGaming Daily with us. Well, I I might be back as an outsider. Let's... If you'll have me. I'm sure we will. I'm sure we'll find some space. em it's the final show as the managing editor. And we just want to be a little bit self-indulgent for a little bit because Jess has been a huge driving force of the show, you know, on behind the microphone and behind the scenes. I think it'd be nice to give a little bit of space. First of all, we'll go a little bit positive. Jess, do you have a favourite story that you've covered on SBC Americas or on the podcast over last couple of years? Something that's slightly more positive, gives you little bit of hope and optimism? Before we go into the dreary, angry rants. It's hard to come by sometimes. You know what, I think some of the stuff that we've seen in the responsible gambling space, gives me a certain amount of hope. think talking about like the guard dog initiative, some of the stuff that FanDuel's been doing, it's nice to see certain operators really embracing that and trying to basically from within get a better control over exactly how people wager and making sure it's within control. But I also just... I think more than a story, it's been really heartening to get to know the regulators over the years and meeting and talking to them and watching all of these meetings and seeing that these people are really, really passionate about what they do by and large. And knowing that that is an area where, you know, there are still going to be by and large, they're not, I can't say it about all 50 states, but there are plenty of people that are going to hold people accountable. And that is always something that's going to sit well with me. definitely. just on the responsible gambling point, it's great from just a consumer protection point of view and making sure that players are safe whilst on these platforms, but ultimately does help with optics of the industry, which can help with regulators, with lawmakers, et cetera, et cetera. Just for those external relationships, being able to show that you are doing the right thing can go a long way. Okay, now that's the optimism side of things. We can throw that to one side for a little bit. We wanted to make sure that for your final show, you're good for a bit of an opinion piece. You're good for a... I have tics? Me? You're good for a rant. You're good for a little moan. So we saw that the new CFTC chair, Michael Selig, came out with some somewhat controversial comments. So, Jess. I'm just gonna let you go. What do you make of C-League's comments? So, let me preface. Am I surprised at all by what I'm about to tell you? No. um Am I annoyed by it? For sure! Yesterday, or Thursday rather, there was a kind of roundtable from the CFTC and the Securities Exchange Commission just talking about how We're going to make USA like the most crypto friendly place imaginable, et cetera, et cetera. And in there, he did do a bit of a shout out regarding prediction markets. the chair did Mike Selig, the new chair. And in it, he basically said the exact opposite of what he told the Senate confirmation committee about how he would handle them when he uh took the role over. ah He said, where jurisdictional questions are at issue, the commission has the expertise and responsibility to defend its exclusive jurisdiction over commodity derivatives, referring to the courts. Compare that to a month ago when he said, I intend to always adhere to the law and follow what the judicial decisions tell me to follow. These are just very challenging, interpretive questions I will look to the courts on. I think it's vitally important that the CFTC look to the courts on a lot of these issues. Of course, it's vital that the CFTC ensure that those contracts are not being manipulated and that they're not really susceptible to manipulation. So that's a full 180. Yeah, like normally when you are a politician and you kind of spout something and you eventually do the opposite, you kind of... tiptoe in that direction so nobody really notices. You don't turn the full 180 degrees all at the same time. So he's now saying the CFTC needs to be active in the litigation of these cases in various courts. Now some of this is a bit like too little too late. We've got these three cases that are on appeal in the circuit courts. There's one in the third, one in the fourth, and then the Nevada one in the ninth. ah There's a period of time where groups can file those amicus briefs to basically say, here's why we think this side is right, et cetera. The window on that is closed in the third and the fourth. They can't yet. In the ninth, they've got like 10 days. So maybe they've been writing something behind the scenes, but there's a good chance they missed that window too. ah But it does mean in the California or the Massachusetts State Court case, the Nevada State Court case, the various court cases that are taking place um in other states, the tribal ones in Wisconsin and California, that they might weigh in. Now, a court can only listen to so much of an agency say, like if an agency is like, well, of course we should have every ounce of the budget directed to our agency and we all should get six months vacation, they're not gonna be like, oh, the agency said it, I guess that's how this works. But having the organization itself, which has not said a word about this yet, going to the defense of Kalshi and Crypto.com, et cetera, is going to be very interesting and it's certainly going to tip the scales. Especially when you think about the fact that most of the court cases we've been talking about lately, Kalshi and them have lost. I think it's fair to say that this isn't entirely what we were expecting to see from the CFTC, right? Yeah. I thought they were going to continue to be as passive as they have been. Given the Seelig testimony and the fact that he's much more interested in crypto, it's interesting to me that they are taking this more active tact. That is a bit surprising. The other piece of this that is really going on the offensive is that he's rescinded two things. In the Biden administration, there was a proposed rule to just very clearly spell out, can't do sports betting, can't do gambling contracts. It was never verified, but it's been introduced and floated around. He is like rescinding that to basically say, no, that's not happening. The other thing he's rescinding is the guidance that the CFTC issued shortly before the government shut down in October, which was If a state court or a court tells you, get out of our state with your sports contracts, you better have a plan for how to get out. This particular guidance has been referenced in a lot of cases, most recently in Massachusetts, where the judge was like, I can't, I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that you're gonna be unduly harmed because you didn't make a geolocation plan. When four months ago, the very organization that regulates you told you to make a geolocation plan. So the fact that that is now disappearing too, put a big, allegedly, if you were Cal she wouldn't you pick up the phone to Donnie Trump Jr. And say, Hey, this thing that they did in September is kind of causing some issues. You mind making that go away? You'd make that phone call, wouldn't you? That would allegedly be quite beneficial. Theoretically. Theoretically, that's probably a phone call I'd make. I'm not saying that it happened. I'm just saying I might make it if I were them. um Keep in mind, Kalashii is also the only one of these groups that hasn't been like, that's fine. Will Geofence, all this stuff? They're the only ones that continue to say in court, If we don't offer everything everywhere, the CFTC might take our license away. You know, like everybody else is like, nah, we'll pull this out of this state and this out of this state. This isn't hard. And it really is interesting that one voice is saying this and it got rescinded when plenty of other voices seem just fine with this. as, as this is perhaps the final weekly Jess update, Prediction Markets corner. What's the number one thing that you think our audience should be keeping an eye on? What's the one thing that we need to bear in mind, anticipate, expect to see happen when it comes to Prediction Markets specifically? I think what to watch out for, and it's the one last thing of these comments we haven't really discussed, is Selig said It's time for clearer rules around the CFTC to make sure that innovations are happening. I think some of this is to try to assuage people who are concerned about insider trading. The coalition for prediction markets is putting this huge PR effort forward that's like, we vet people, it's fine. There's no insider trading. So. I think what they'll probably try to do is in these rules, try to codify a lot of stuff that may not be in the Commodity Exchange Act, including stuff related to sports and wars and who has the most plays on Spotify and whatever. I gotta rant another minute, Charlie, I'm sorry, but like, I keep getting told. Oh, it's super high vetting. We look very closely at everybody that comes on our prediction market and participates very kindly. The chief legal officer of crypto.com tried to explain this to me where I'm just like, how does a basic KYC check stop me from cheating essentially from taking information that I have that nobody else has and using it? And he's like, well, for example, we can tell you work for SBC and so on and so forth. I'm like, okay. So when I sign up and the hypothetical market, how many stories is SBC media going to post today, market comes up. Am I just automatically prohibited from participating in that? Is my sister? And he's like, well, you know, we keep an eye on that market and we would flag any suspicious behavior. And then, you know, we send that along to the regulators. You know, the CFTC that keeps saying, hey, there's like 11 people that work here and we don't have the time or people to get anything done, that group, and they'll handle it. So, again, like, I don't know. I don't know how these work, but this is more than the Venezuela thing on international polymarket. These Spotify things mention markets the length of the US press secretaries, press conferences. There are many, many instances in which people clearly had information other people didn't have. And maybe those rules will address that a little better. But it remains strange to me that it's just like a handoff of just like, we told them not much we can do behind that. I'm like, yeah, you can. You can stop them from doing it. all I would say is that just look at what allegedly might have happened in the NBA, college football over the last few years. know, These are heavily regulated sports betting environments. So let's see if prediction markets can protect their, protect the integrity of everything at the same time. Well, it remains to be seen. mean, that's, we'll see, you know, it's, makes a lot of noise. I guess my last parting shot for those of you. mean, we're part of the problem, right? We never shut up about these things. I will tell you in the United States, the average person has no idea this is even a thing that exists. So I don't think prediction markets are gonna take over and every American is just gonna be glued to their phone trying to predict the truth. um It's a niche thing. It's just they are inundating the spaces gaming people live in and it feels like it's everywhere, but it's not. That's the most optimistic thing I can say. We are ending on a high note, Charlie. Fantastic, yeah, I wouldn't have predicted that actually, so there you go. But actually, just on that, maybe we should link to Tom Nightingale's op-ed from last month where he did actually give a little bit of insight into what it's like being a gambling industry journalist reporting on prediction markets so heavily throughout 2025. We'll link to that because that was really interesting. But that leaves me to say, Jess... Thank you ever so much for being such a powerful voice on the podcast, being such a powerful voice behind the scenes of the podcast, helping us to put it together. And yeah, we're over 700 episodes in now and yeah, you've been a real shining light through all of that. So thank you very much. Thank you for letting me have a place to just get things off my chest that you can't always put in writing. It's been particularly fun, Charlie, developing our rapport on this pod over the years. So I might just... you know, to scratch the itch every six months or so, demand I come on here and talk about something. Definitely. I think it sounds like a great plan. But yeah, Jess, we wish you all the best of luck moving forward. And I don't think you need the luck. I think you'll you'll succeed in whatever you do next. So eh we'll watch with bated breath. But yeah, thanks, Jess. Thank you, and Aya, the producer. And thanks to the audience 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.