Spanish Supreme Court Partially Upholds Appeal Lodged by Jdigital

j+digital_labels_spain_ad_restrictions_annulments_very_positive_but_urges_cautionThe Spanish Digital Gaming Association (Jdigital), announced that the country’s Supreme Court has partially upheld the association’s appeal against Royal Decree 958/2020, a piece of legislation which introduced several restrictions for the industry. However, Jdigital called for more dialogue with the Spanish regulator in order to put the country’s iGaming market on the right path.

The Spanish Supreme Court decided to partially uphold an appeal lodged by Jdigital and annulled several measures stipulated in the Royal Decree 958/2020, which came into effect in November 2020. Almost four years later the Supreme Court ruled that several articles in that decree lacked legal basis.

One of the annulled bits of legislation was article 13, which was related to targeted advertisements towards new customers. Following the Supreme Court’s decision iGaming operators in Spain will once again be able to advertise their products to players who have held an account for less than 30 days. Moreover, they will be able to advertise in venues with public accessibility which sell lottery games.

The ruling by the Supreme Court also allows celebrities to appear in gaming advertising again, while the ban on gambling ads on video sharing platforms was overturned as well. This means that iGaming operators can advertise their products to social media users, but only to those above 18 years of age.

Very Positive News

A previous appeal by Jdigital was rejected by Spain’s constitutional court in November 2023. The victory at the Supreme Court was described by Jdigital in a statement as “very positive news for the online gaming sector.”

However, the Spanish Digital Gaming Association argued that the measures that remain in place still impose several limitations that are considered too restrictive by the industry. For example, the ban on advertising between 1am and 5am both on radio and television remains in place, as it is covered by the General Law of Audiovisual Communication.

Moreover, Article 12 of the Royal Decree 958/2020 was not annulled, which means that iGaming operators still can not use branding for events that minors can see or sponsor sporting events or broadcasts. That said, Jdigital called for increased dialogue between the iGaming industry and the regulatory authorities in order to boost responsible gambling efforts while also allowing sustainable growth for the industry.

Source:

“Jdigital labels Spain ad restrictions annulments “very positive” but urges caution“, igamingbusiness.com, April 11, 2024.

The post Spanish Supreme Court Partially Upholds Appeal Lodged by Jdigital appeared first on Casino News Daily.

Supreme Court Grants DOJ Additional Time to Submit Seminole Sports Betting Response

The United States Supreme Court has extended a deadline that was set for today, Friday, April 12, for the U.S. government to submit testimony on a pending case challenging Florida’s Class III gaming compact with the Seminole Tribe.

Supreme Court Florida Seminole sports betting
The U.S. Supreme Court has granted the federal government extra time to submit testimony on why it is of the opinion that Florida’s 2021 gaming compact with the Seminole Tribe does not violate federal law. The law in question is the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. (Image: AP)

The Supreme Court granted the extension request from the U.S. Department of Justice, which is representing the U.S. Department of the Interior in the case West Flagler Associates, Ltd., et al v. Debra Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, et al. The new deadline is May 12 for the DOJ to submit its opinion on why Florida’s revised gaming compact with the Seminole Tribe struck in 2021 does not violate the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).

Justice Department officials said more time was needed because its attorneys have been working on “other matters before the Court.” The delay means the Seminoles’ Hard Rock Bet online sportsbook can continue to operate inside the Sunshine State until at least May 12 but presumably much longer, as the federal tribal gaming lawsuit likely won’t be resolved for at least several months.

Lawsuit Backstory

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and the Seminole Tribe in May 2021 agreed to new revenue-sharing terms for the tribe’s Seminole and Hard Rock casinos.

The tribe pledged to direct the state a minimum of $6 billion through 2030 to retain its monopoly on slot machines outside of Miami-Dade and Broward counties and house-banked table game exclusivity statewide. In exchange for what DeSantis hailed as a “historic” and “mutually-beneficial agreement,” the tribe gained roulette and craps privileges at its six brick-and-mortar casinos, plus both retail and online sports betting.

The online sports betting component was quickly pushed back on by two pari-mutuel licensees — West Flagler Associates and Bonita-Fort Myers Corporation. Attorneys representing the entities that respectively run the Magic City Casino in Miami and Bonita Springs Poker Room alleged that the state’s decision to allow the tribe to conduct online sports wagering violates IGRA, which requires tribal gaming to be conducted only on sovereign lands owned by federally recognized tribes.

State attorneys argued since the Hard Rock Bet online sportsbook servers remain on Seminole property, the expansion to the internet remains in compliance with IGRA. The DOI and Secretary Haaland agreed while approving the 2021 compact.

Lower federal courts have also sided with Florida, which led to the case being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Once the DOJ submits its testimony, SCOTUS will at some point issue a statement on whether it will accept the case.

State Challenge Remains

If West Flagler and Bonita Springs are dealt another federal loss, their last resort would be to continue with a state case. That litigation deals with whether DeSantis had the authority to expand gaming in Florida after state residents in 2018 passed a ballot that provides the public — not the state — with the “exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling.”

The Seminoles helped bankroll the 2018 constitutional amendment because their attorneys say it has to do only with new forms of commercial gambling — not tribal. The amendment was designed to block commercial casinos from coming to Miami where a Malaysia-based casino giant, Genting Group, was lobbying state lawmakers to allow an integrated resort.

The Florida Supreme Court last month reprimanded West Flagler and Bonita Springs attorneys for petitioning the case to the state high court without first going through lower courts.

The post Supreme Court Grants DOJ Additional Time to Submit Seminole Sports Betting Response appeared first on Casino.org.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rejects Casino Appeal, License Back to Racing Commission

The Arkansas Supreme Court will not hear an appeal petitioned by the Cherokee Nation Businesses (CNB) regarding its planned Legends Resort & Casino in Russellville.

Arkansas Supreme Court Cherokee Pope County
The Arkansas Supreme Court will not take up an appeal from an Oklahoma tribe seeking to build a commercial casino in Pope County. The Cherokee Nation Businesses, however, is still the presumed front-runner for the gaming license. (Image: AP)

A year ago this month, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox ruled that the Arkansas Racing Commission erred in issuing a commercial casino license earmarked for Pope County to CNB, the commercial business unit of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. In considering a lawsuit challenging the granting by a rival casino bidder, Gulfside Casino Partnership in Mississippi, Fox determined that the Cherokee bid violated rules established through Amendment 100 of the Arkansas Constitution.

State voters in November 2018 passed the amendment to allow a single casino in the counties of Crittenden, Garland, Jefferson, and Pope. The casino bidding rules, however, required the state Racing Commission to only consider pitches from single entities.

Fox concluded that CNB applied as a consortium with a newly formed company called Legends Resort & Casino, LLC. The state Supreme Court last week opted to deny reconsidering the case. The high court in October upheld Fox’s decision in a 5-2 ruling.

License Returned to Racing Commission

With the Cherokee’s appeal formally settled, the Pope County casino license has been returned to the Arkansas Racing Commission. The state gaming regulator is expected to conduct a new bidding round, but the $300 million Legends Casino will presumably be the only qualified bid.

In separate litigation, it’s been determined through the Arkansas court system that bidders must have the support of either the sitting county judge or the present county quorum court. Last month, the Pope County Quorum Court voted 7-6 to endorse the CNB proposal. Pope County Judge Ben Cross has also backed the Legends development.

Gulfside previously applied with a letter of support from former Pope County Judge Ed Gibson, who issued his backing on the final day of his tenure before he exited the position in December 2018. Gulfside pitched a $254 million casino in Russellville called River Valley Casino Resort.

While Fox ruled against the Cherokees in January 2023, he also discredited the Gulfside plan when he decided that “the county judge” in Amendment 100’s language refers to the current judge — not a former county judge.

CNB will be expected to reapply as a single entity, likely as Legends Resort & Casino, LLC, which the company fully owns.

License Dilemma Continues

More than five years since Arkansans approved a casino in Pope County, the gaming license still hasn’t been issued. Meanwhile, casinos have opened in the three other counties.

The Pope County controversy began in 2020 when it was determined that Racing Commissioner Butch Rice had a bias in his grading of the Gulfside bid a perfect 100 out of 100 and the Cherokee plan just 29/100. The Racing Commission decided to exclude Rice’s scoring, which had tipped the overall score in Gulfside’s favor and opted to issue the license to the Cherokees.

That initiated the legal controversy, with Cherokee and Gulfside attorneys battling for the casino concession ever since. Ricer is no longer a commissioner on the seven-person state agency.

The post Arkansas Supreme Court Rejects Casino Appeal, License Back to Racing Commission appeared first on Casino.org.

Court Voids Nassau Coliseum Lease Transfer for Sands New York Casino Plan

A New York State Supreme Court justice Thursday annulled a previously agreed to lease transfer of Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Uniondale, NY — the site where Las Vegas Sands is looking to construct a $4 billion casino hotel.

Sands Long Island
Nassau Coliseum. A New York State Supreme Court justice voided the county’s lease transfer agreement with Las Vegas Sands. (Image: LongIsland.com)

In May, the Republican-controlled Nassau County legislators voted 17-1 in favor of granting Sands a 99-year lease to develop county-owned land on the Nassau Hub site. Sands revealed in January that its quest for a New York City-area gaming license would be centered on Nassau County. This year, Sands has paid $241 million to the former lease holder, Nassau Live Center LLC, as well as $54 million to the county as required by the lease accord.

Sands’ effort to procure one of the three yet-to-be-awarded New York City-area casino permits is widely supported by Nassau County politicians of both parties and the plan is mostly favored by vocals, but Hofstra University is a vocal critic of the proposal.

In April, the university, which is located near the Coliseum, sued Nassau County, alleging county officials held talks on the Sands casino without informing the public of those discussions. If true, that violates New York’s open meeting laws.

Hofstra has demonstrated that the failure to post the resolution was not merely technical, but rather was ‘an attempt to avoid public scrutiny’ of the proposed lease transfer,” wrote Justice Sarika Kapoor in her decision.

Sands said the ruling doesn’t affect its New York plans nor does it believe the decision will impact its odds of winning a gaming permit in the state.

Nassau County Has Some Work to Do

In her ruling, Kapoor asserted that Nassau County focused more on the technicalities of the Coliseum lease transfer to Sands and less on allowing public comment on the issue and how a gaming venue could affect nearby communities.

Sands has touted the job-creating potential of the proposed gaming venue and its ability to bolster receipts for Nassau County and the state. The company has also highlighted plans to lure convention business to the hotel, entertainment and restaurants — traits that diminish the argument that it would be a gaming-centric establishment.

However, the Say NO to the Casino Civic Association, a group opposing the Nassau County casino effort, argued that not only have locals not had their voices heard, but a gaming venue could increase crime, environmental harm and traffic. The group is calling for environmental and traffic impact studies to be conducted following the Supreme Court ruling.

In her decision, Kapoor noted because the county “engaged in improper segmentation by not considering the future development planned by Sands, the Court finds that the Nassau County Legislature did not take the requisite ‘hard look’ at the relevant areas of environmental concern raised by the lease transfer…”

A traffic study has yet to be conducted, and Sands chose to focus its New York efforts on Long Island to avoid contributing to motor vehicle congestion in Manhattan. In August, Sands submitted a land-use application to Hempstead — one of the towns that could be affected by the casino hotel — and that town is conducting an environmental impact review as required by state law.

Ruling Adds to Already Chaotic New York Casino Process

In 2022, New York lawmakers approved three downstate casinos — a decision that has lured some of the industry’s biggest names to the fourth-largest state to try their luck. Since then, the process has become increasingly hectic.

It was originally expected that regulators there would decide on the three winning bidders in 2024, but some analysts believe that decision will be pushed off to 2025. Additionally, bids by MGM’s Empire City Casino in Yonkers and Genting’s Resorts World New York in Queens could be hampered by former executive Scott Sibella’s alleged role in an illegal sports betting ring.

Thursday’s court ruling on the Nassau County lease transfer adds to the chaos. The Say NO to Casino Civic Association views the decision as a warning shot for other New York casino efforts.

“New York State officials should take note of this ruling by Judge Kapoor when making decisions on awarding the gambling licenses, as it highlights (Nassau) County Executive (Bruce) Blakeman’s contempt for his own constituents, and his blatant disregard for federal, state, and even county laws, as well as the right of every Nassau County resident to understand the wide-ranging, long-term impacts that this massive project will have on our way of life,” according to the group.

The post Court Voids Nassau Coliseum Lease Transfer for Sands New York Casino Plan appeared first on Casino.org.

US Court Okays $415 million class settlement against “free-to-play” Casino

us_court_okays_415_million_class_settlement_against_free_to_play_casinoFollowing years of litigation, a U.S. judge on Thursday approved a $415 million class-action settlement against DoubleDown Interactive LLC and International Game Technology PLC (IGT.N). The settlement resolves claims that the “social casino” and the online gaming company violated consumer protection provisions and Washington state gambling law where personal gambling online is a felony.

U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik in Seattle federal court called the resolution “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” in his ruling that was the final approval order and ended almost half a decade of litigant action.

Conclusion of Nearly Half a Decade of Litigation

The case arose in 2018 about one year after Aristocrat Liesure’s Big Fish Games another social gaming site with chip purchases but also a black market trading space for the “chips of no value” was found to be offering illegal casino games in the state of Washington by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Kater V. Churchill Downs – the panel was assembled to hear an appeal related to the Seattle courts’ finding that the games were not illegal under state.

In the most recent case, online consumers alleged the “social casino” games developed by the defendants “constitute unlawful gambling under Washington’s gambling laws.” The settlement was the latest in a series of related cases.

The specific arm of world gambling behemoth IGT, International Game Technology PLC, is based in the U.K., and DoubleDown have denied any liability. They argued that the plaintiffs’ claims “rest on novel and untested interpretations of Washington’s gambling laws.”

The games start out free to play with a certain number of free chips granted, but players must purchase additional chips or wait a period of time for additional chips to be awarded.

The suit was brought on behalf of tens of thousands of class members who “purchased and lost chips” by wagering at DoubleDown Casino, the plaintiffs’ lawyers alleged. Attorneys argued users were entitled to recover their losses under a Washington state law.

About half a dozen class members opted out of the settlement, but there were no formal objections to the deal and there was no clear indication that those former class members intended to pursue individual cases against the firms.

Lawyers have recovered over $600m for Plaintiffs

Edelson counsel, Todd Logan, speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs said on Friday that the firm’s social-casino litigation has produced or recovered over $650 million for clients and class members to date.

Many class members stand to receive, individually, hundreds of thousands of dollars,” said Logan

Chicago-based Edelson was awarded over $120 million in the case.

Judge Lasnik’s fee award amounted to nearly 30% of the total award, outstripping the state’s and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal’s benchmark 25% top fee award for such cases.

Lasnik said the litigation was “risky, novel, and hard-fought,” in his award order, and so he approved a request for fees that went beyond a 25% benchmark.

The case is Benson et al v. DoubleDown Interactive LLC et al, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL.

Source: US court approves ‘social casino’ $415 million class settlement, Reuters, June 2, 2023

The post US Court Okays $415 million class settlement against “free-to-play” Casino appeared first on Casino News Daily.