iGaming Daily

In the wake of the Global Gaming Expo, the fervor
around sweepstakes casinos is reaching a fever

pitch. In a recent webinar, members of the Indian
Gaming Association and California Nations Indian

Gaming Association sounded off on the vertical,
equating both sweeps and DFS Plus with vampires.

Others are coming after sweeps too, which begs
the question, what is the tipping point and

when is it coming? We're going to discuss that
as well as a new study about betters coming

after college athletes on today's episode of
iGaming Daily. iGaming Daily is brought to

you by OptiMove, the number one CRM marketing
solution for the iGaming market. And congrats

to OptiMove, who recently signed a deal with
Vagouse to provide its products for the company

that is Finland's national lottery operator.
I am Jessica Wellman, editor of SBC Americas,

joined by my media manager, Charlie Horner,
Charlie, I've missed you. I feel like every

time I'm just like, it's been too long. It has,
it's been a while. We've both been very busy.

The podcast schedulers don't like us anymore,
apparently. No, we've been canceled. Everyone

should be petitioning the producers to get us
back on. We didn't even say anything offensive.

Like, what the heck, man? I'm sad that you didn't
get to watch this webinar that we're gonna

talk about, but I feel like I'm very excited
to hear what you have to say, being given just

a transcript of what was said. So for those
who hadn't heard about this, Victor Roca is

a consultant as well as a member of the Indian
Gaming Association. He has always been a very

outspoken person on tribal gaming issues. And
he was being outspoken during G2E and now he

is doing webinars that you can find on his LinkedIn
page. He said he's gonna be doing five of these,

looking at the impact of sweeps and DFS on California
in particular. And the first one happened yesterday

where he was joined by California Nations Indian
Gaming Association Chair, James Siva, as well

as IGA Executive Director, Jason Giles. And
Charlie, I'll let you since you kind of asked

me, what did you think of the tone of this webinar?
It's very, very punchy. I mean, that webinars.

You learn a lot from webinars, but usually the
language isn't so venomous as it is in this

one. So yeah, to read over the transcript this
morning was quite entertaining. I was explaining

to a lay person, they were just like, oh, what's
your day like? And I was like, well, I listened

to a webinar in which there was an extended
metaphor about the movie Blade, and they compared

positively what they were doing to Infanticide.
We're kind of burying what they're actually

talking about here. The extended metaphor with
Blade, the vampire movie, was that Roka was

suggesting that sweepstakes sites posing as
casino operators and DFS plus sites in California

are leeching off of the California economy and
not putting anything back into it. I'd like

to focus more though on what James Siva was
saying because he was very, I mean all three

of them were just like, this is illegal, there
is no argument that this is legal, they are

absolutely not allowed to be doing this and
we are taking steps to make sure that this

doesn't happen. I don't really know if that
holds a lot of water. We covered this on SBC

Americas last year. It's been about a year that
we should be getting this opinion at some time,

but the state legislature actually asked the
Attorney General Rob Bonta's office to, they

commissioned an opinion on not sweepstakes,
but on DFS because it's unclear. And it's so

unclear that, I mean, you have DraftKings and
Fandual operating in there in addition to the

prize picks and the underdogs of the world that,
It's a very disjointed quote, I will say. Siva

said, the attorney general has still yet to
promulgate these regs. That's not really what

they're doing. They're offering an opinion.
So I think that's probably a good sign. I think

if it had gone fast, it would have been bad
for the tribes, but now he's getting pushed

back. I think he's thinking deeply about this
law. And then a breath later said, but just

to clarify, in California, DFS is illegal. It
happens. The state allows it to happen, but

it's illegal. There's no other way around it.
What do you make of that one, Charlie? Yeah,

you can just hear the vested interests loud
and clear there. Like you say, Jess, if you

have the likes of Fanjul and DraftKings offering
their products in California there, they've

got some very expensive lawyers, they're very
well resourced, they're going to have at least

a reasonable amount of confidence that what
they're doing there is all above board. But

obviously you can understand from the tribes
perspective, they have the complete opposite

opinion and they're going to fight their corner,
you know, tooth and nail and make sure that

they're winning, not just the legal battle,
but the PR battle as well. Yeah. And I will

say, I completely understand the frustration
on the side of the tribes. And Siva mentioned

this. This is a group of people that when it
comes to California card rooms, They've been

battling back and forth with these card rooms
for, I started in poker in 2008, and I'm pretty

sure I was hearing stories about this in 2008,
just like what is the limits of what card rooms

can offer? And they've been going to regulators,
they've been going to legislators, they've

been going to the attorney general. And it took
until this year for them to pass a bill to

allow them to pursue this issue in the courts.
So it has to be a little frustrating that like

you've done this kind of push to protect your
turf and it took this long to get action, but

somebody was like, yeah, sure, commission a
DFS opinion after a couple of years of DFS

plus kind of becoming an issue and it immediately
got attention. So I understand that piece of

it a lot. Here is where I find the tactic of
what the tribes are doing. interesting is the

polite way to say it. They're very much lumping
DFS 2.0 and sweepstakes together. For me in

particular, this is just a very incongruous
thing because these are two separate battles

in my mind. One of these is governed by laws
regarding skill gaming, the fantasy carveout

of UIGEA, and the other is sweepstakes law.
So, I mean, do you see value in grouping these

two together in just like maybe you're getting
more bang for your PR buck or is it a little

disjointed to you two? I understand both sides.
I definitely subscribe to the idea that you

may as well attack both whilst you're at it
because, you know, if you are having that PR

battle, if you like, the DFS 2.0 thing, we've
been reporting on this for, you know, well

over a year now. not just in California, but
all across the US. And it's only really in

the last sort of six months that the sweeps
have really taken over and been like the big

story in town. So I can kind of understand why
they would group them together, but as you

say, Jess, when you pick it apart from a legal
standpoint, two completely different arguments

and that's going to take two completely different...
pieces of legal action, I guess. Yeah, yeah,

exactly. So for the PR battle, I guess it makes
sense. But from the legal standpoint, I'm not

too sure. Yeah. And here's what's happening
on this front. Right now, I mean, the tribes

are sovereign nations. They don't have a tremendous
amount of courses of action to take here. With

sweeps in particular, I mean, and DFS, to be
honest, you've got to get Rob Bond to the the

AG on your side. The DFS issue is about we're
going to find out one way or another. I would

think soon. This request came in November of
2023. The fact we don't have one yet is something.

But we'll have a DFS resolution. But you now
need the AG. You need the power of that office

to send. The tribes can't send cease and desist.
So you need that group to send cease and desist

for you and determine that this is illegal.
They have sent a letter to Banta's office.

One thing, what they are also doing, which I
think is a smart and interesting tactic is,

Siva said they will be sending similar letters
to Google, Apple, you know, the Play Store,

which is also Google saying, you are enabling
illegal gambling by listing these apps in your

store. And you should be aware of that, that
we are on notice of this and that you are,

as we see it, complicit in making this happen.
That to me is a smart step because this is

a group of people that, yes, they have the vested
interest of the transactions of the apps and

the app store and stuff like that, but they
don't have the horse in this race the same

way a VGW does or a payment processor does.
Do you think that those groups will listen

to these letters at all though? I think at the
end of the day, it was going to come down to

money, right? I think if those app stores and
Google, you know, they're making money out

of these apps being on their platforms, then,
you know, I think it's going to take a lot

of persuading for them to move. But what I will
say is if those letters do have some sway in

terms of Google reading them and thinking actually
they may have a legal point, they would be

able to move a lot faster than... the state
and the AG's office in terms of being able

to pull those apps. So from the tribe's perspective,
it's a smart move. It's a way of, again, replicating

that message and potentially getting a faster
course of action than going down the legal

route. Yeah. I'm curious. You know, I'm always
curious. That's just me in a nutshell. The

tribes, very vested interests. California is
one of those. If you are VGW, you get sent

to cease and desist in Connecticut, you just
concede Connecticut. You know, there's the

value of fighting that one and potentially,
even if you think you win, the potential that

you lose and then you're done everywhere is
not worth the population of Connecticut. If

you get that from California, from Texas, I'm
pretty sure they're going to fight back and

say, we're not leaving and we're happy to challenge
this in court. because at that point where

it's game over either way. You know, so we'll
see if they can actually persuade the AG to

do something. On Twitter, if you follow Daniel
Wallach, he is a noted gaming attorney who

has very strong opinions about the sweeps legal
argument. And you can see he's done, he's written

some op-eds, he's looked over, there are a lot
of cases pending on this, there's some in Massachusetts.

There's one in Georgia, there's one in Florida.
We've talked before, a lot of these, you know,

just get kicked to arbitration because that's
part of the terms and conditions. These other

ones, these people are very purposely opted
out of arbitration. They are for like campaign

for fair gambling, I think is one of them. These
are people with a vested interest to push this

in the court. So we'll see if one of those court
decisions comes anytime soon. The chatter is

getting heavier. There are people that are just
like this webinar that are very quick to pound

their fist and say that it's illegal. And when
I was at G2E, I listened to, we talked about

it a little on our G2E recap last week on iGimmeDaily,
I listened to a sweeps panel and I will say

the people arguing that sweeps are legal made
some incredibly persuasive points and I'm not

sure the argument of just, well, this isn't
fair and this is illegal and pound your fist

is gonna work, given that there's a lot to it.
The Michigan Gaming Control Board guy, his

name's escaping me, was like, if you took away
the McDonald's Monopoly game, McDonald's wouldn't

go out of business. Whereas, if you took away
VGW's real money gambling, the company would

go out of business. And I actually don't think
that's true. They would lose a massive source

of revenue, they would be devastated, but their
social casino business is not pennies, it's

substantial. That's where I think the argument
about whether it's a sham or not has a little

more finesse than people are giving it. Will
Barron Yeah, I think it goes back to the point

that you're saying, though, that the stakes
are just so high for both sides as well. We

forget that it's only two years ago that we
were having the whole... Prop 26 versus Prop

27 campaign in California as well. So there's
a lot of ground running in California and nobody

wants to lose. No, and the thing is like, it's
gonna be litigate, it's gonna end up in the

courts. So this isn't like we have lawmakers,
we have this, you would have to pass a new

law specifically outlying this in order for
this to really go anywhere. So we will continue

to keep an eye on that. You can read the recap
of the webinar on SBC Americas. We're going

to take a quick break and come back to discuss
a new study from the NCAA with the surprising

news that people on the internet suck. Welcome
back to iGaming Daily. Charlie, we had an interesting

piece of research drop last week from the NCAA.
I briefly ran into Mark Hicks at G2E and he

was excited for it to get out, which was looking
at better abuse at... college athletes and

a lot of what the study had to say was not great.
You took a look at it. What was your overarching

thoughts and things that stood out to you about
the research? Will Barron Well, I think the

biggest thing that I noticed and you can't really
hide from it is that it's quite rare that I

read reports with a trigger and content warnings
on the front page because some of the content

involved is very, very strong. dark, it's horrible
and yeah, like you said, before the break,

it sort of just shines a light on how vile people
can be. Again, this is something that I remember

reporting on quite extensively when I was writing
on SBC Americas, is the rise of sports betting

as sort of seeing the increase of abuse on social
media of these college athletes who people

are betting on. and well, quite clearly losing
those bets. And yeah, it's very concerning.

And I think there's a lot that people need to
reflect on and take action on, I suppose. What

did you take away from it? It really just confirmed
what I already knew, which is that this is

happening. The report found that around 12%
of the messages that they looked at, they looked

at in particular like March Madness. They did
look at some women's sporting events like volleyball,

gymnastics. They found, you know, and 12%, that
is 743 messages that amounted to violent threats

to people, which is a lot. And we're not even
talking about like they didn't canvas the entire

internet even. That, you know, and it was like
the third highest thing in terms of the category,

like I think like sexual. innuendo and abuse
was the most and something else was slightly

behind it. But third was sports betting. And
when you looked at these messages, it was like,

you know, you better get it together so my parlay
hits or all your family is going to die. It's

pretty clear where this is coming from. What
was more interesting to me was this weird backlash

on social media about it with a lot of people.
Where... It's just like, well, everybody's

awful. Don't blame it on sports betters. People
have been yelling at sports athletes for a

long time. And I'm just like, is that really
how you want to approach this? It doesn't sound

great. Like to not even concede that it's a
problem lands really poorly with me. I don't

know if you saw any of this chatter or not.
I mean, I don't, I haven't seen it specifically,

but I think this argument is made quite a lot
is. People want to shirk away from the issues

just to make themselves feel as though what
they're doing isn't as bad as other people.

It's the classic sort of what about-ery that
is often used online. And yeah, it's, yeah,

like I said before, it is concerning. But what's
even more concerning to me is that the study

points out that this only takes into account
those messages that are publicly available

online. doesn't even take into account direct
messages that these people are receiving. So

I can't imagine what the content of those messages
are. Yeah. And the study said, and we're pretty

sure those are worse. And given when I've seen
athletes post stuff, it has been DMs that are

just so vile. And yeah, the scope of this, this
is probably, it's for sure underplaying the

scope of how much this is taking place. The
NCAA continues to push for a complete ban on

player props in college sports. We've got some
states, Ohio, Louisiana, Maryland, Vermont,

that have all said, sure, that seems reasonable.
We've had some states double down and push

back and say, we don't really see that as an
issue, but we'll keep an open mind. No operators

are going to voluntarily pull these markets
unless they have to. And so the argument there

is... And it's kind of funny, you know, the
NCAA also put out research that found that

putting prohibitions on student athletes wasn't
curbing their behavior. And some people rightfully

kind of said, well, if you don't think prohibition
is going to curb their behavior, why do you

think prohibition is going to curb this behavior?
Which is a fair point. But on the other side

of it, I'm like, it's... I'm going to quote
one of my favourite movies, Bridge of Spies,

like, would it help? Like, would it hurt? Like,
it's not going to make it worse. Exactly. Yeah,

I think that's the main point is that it's not
going to make anything worse. It's yeah, I

think it's a different, it's a cultural difference
here, right? Because we don't have, our college

football or college soccer isn't as big as college
football is in the US. It's not, it's nowhere

near on the same scale. You're not national
superstars. No, no. They only become superstars

when they break into the first teams and become,
well, they start playing on the world stage.

So it's slightly different. So I can't properly
understand how that dynamic works, but surely

if you're exposing these young players into
these arenas of hundreds of thousands of people

and you've got thousands of people betting on
them at home. a lot of pressure there and you

could probably do without the abuse that some
of these players are receiving. So any way

that we can sort of minimise that, I don't see
as a bad thing. Obviously the operators, like

you said, aren't going to voluntarily pull those
markets, but it's going to take collective

action, I think. I am reminded too of the thing
about college athletes here, they're students.

You know where to find them. they're on campus,
they have to go to class. And this isn't like

when you're Travis Kelce or Patrick Mahomes
or whoever and you can have privacy and bodyguards

and this sort of thing. Like these people have
to go live amongst the public and they don't

have those kinds of protections. She's, you
know, I don't think people are betting on women's

gymnastics, God willing, they aren't. But like
Olivia Dunn is a very popular social media

presence who is an athlete at LSU, she has to
take all of her classes online because like

the gross people on the internet have made it
impossible for her to have a normal student

athlete experience. And that's a problem. You
know, somebody at the age of 18, 19, your prefrontal

cortex isn't developed. They shouldn't, you
know, to put them under this kind of stress

is just extensive and excessive. It's a tough
spot. I reiterate that these markets make up

maybe 1% of betting handle. And so I don't really
follow why this is this contentious issue.

I hear arguments that like, well, first they're
going to come for this and then they're going

to come for college betting altogether. I've
seen far too many lucrative contracts for data

rights with leagues and stuff to ever believe
that's going to be the case, but we shall see.

All right. Charlie, anything you want to...
point out on the network that you think people

would be of interest to check out? Well, we've
had a couple of features from Camby this week.

We've had a... And big news out of Camby that
they're going into odds providing, not just

platform providing, kind of segmenting out their
stuff. So... Yeah, that's right. Yeah, they're

sort of moving, well, not moving away from,
they're still providing their turnkey solutions,

but they're also providing some of those more
separate products as well. We've had an interview

with the new Chief Commercial Officer, Sarah
Robertson, that's on SBC News right now. We'll

also be going live on SBC Americas as well.
So yeah, be sure to check that one out. All

right, I'm going to get a quick plug in. It's
a little old, but right at the start of G2E,

we had interviewed Jeremy Levine, the CEO of
Underdog, a year ago, and the opportunity came

up to speak to him again to just kind of look
at- how much the company has changed in a year

and how much this company is poaching talent
from all over the regulated industry. So that's

a good one to check out. Jeremy's always a fun
chat if you guys wanna do that. We'll have

links to those in the description below. And
in the meantime, continue to check out everything

on SBC Americas and the rest of the SBC News
Network, as well as to tune in on to the next

episode of iGaming Daily.