Through the Wire Act

Legalized sports gambling has become one of the hottest topics in state legislatures ever since the United States Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n1 allowed states to begin legalizing the activity. As states began to offer sports wagering, gambling became front and center in the news and the Trump administration’s Justice Department took the opportunity to rewrite a 2011 Office of Legal Counsel opinion, expanding the scope of the most prominent federal anti-gambling statute. The re-interpretation of the scope of the Wire Act reversed the Department of Justice’s position that the statute only applied to interstate sports wagering, and instead incorporated all forms of interstate wagering. The new interpretation is exceptional because it follows years of failed legislative attempts to re-write the statute. The executive branch used this interpretation to circumvent the legislature and expand the scope of the statute. The nature of the Wire Act’s targeted activities is one of many questions surrounding a statute that was applied for decades with few questions. The rise of the internet has brought on many more questions regarding the scope of the Wire Act—questions that have become prescient in an era of expanded legal gambling. This Article analyzes the most significant questions regarding the application of the Wire Act and suggests that contrary to the Department of Justice’s 2018 opinion, the statute is intended to apply to a very small group of activities

Prohibitive Failure: The Demise of the Ban on Sports Betting

On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the federal prohibition on sports gambling. The sweeping opinion, authored by Justice Alito, ended more than a twenty-fiveyear- old policy that kept states from offering sports gambling, which confined sports betting almost entirely to illegal underground markets. Indeed, the sports betting prohibition is largely responsible for the growth of the illegal sports gambling market, which is now one of America’s twenty largest industries. The challenge to the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act was initially launched in 2012 when former U.S. Attorney and New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, signed a bill licensing sports betting at New Jersey casinos and racetracks. Almost six years later, Governor Philip Murphy would see New Jersey prevail at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision, holding that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act was unconstitutional because of its commandeering of state legislative bodies, was an impactful decision bound to have implications across a variety of topics, ranging from state legalization of marijuana to so-called sanctuary cities. This article explores the origins of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act by detailing the political conditions that gave rise to the statute and then examines the practicalities of the sports betting prohibition. In the second section, this article discusses the demise of the prohibition and its defeat at the Supreme Court. In section three, this article elucidates the remaining obstacles to an expansion of sports betting at the state and federal level. In section four, this article recommends several provisions that would serve the interests of all in new legal markets and concludes with a brief discussion of the broader implications of the fall of the prohibition

Modern Day Bucket Shops? Fantasy Sports and Illegal Exchanges

The rapid emergence of online daily fantasy sports has raised questions as to why the contests are allowed, while other forms of gambling are restricted. Historically, “bucket shops” were banned enterprises where businesses would effectively accept wagers on whether companies’ stock prices would go up or down. There was never an underlying investment in companies themselves, only a deposit into a “bucket.” While bucket shops have largely faded, we examine whether they have disappeared in name only. Our analysis opens up another avenue for regulators beyond the antiquated skill-versus-chance evaluation typically applied to gambling activities and suggests that certain fantasy contests may run counter to Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulations. Applying this existing regulatory framework would likely enhance consumer protection and market integrity

Monopolizing Sports Data

With legal sports betting viewed as a panacea for state budget woes across the United States, the underlying data that fuels the sports betting industry has emerged as an especially valuable asset. In the hopes of capitalizing on state laws that have now legalized sports betting, United States professional sports leagues have attempted to gain exclusive ownership rights over valuable sports betting data by asking legislators to mandate that bookmakers exclusively use data sold through the league. In addition, some sports leagues have imposed policies mandating that teams bundle together their collected data for purposes of selling it exclusively through the league to third parties, and, on the league level, compiling sports data rights with other desirable league rights—all with the hopes of allowing the league to gain control over all data pertaining to their sport, and thus, indirectly, sports betting. These efforts by the United States professional sports leagues to potentially monopolize sports data markets raise novel questions both in terms of who, if anyone, owns the property rights to sports data and what efforts, if any, are needed to prevent sports leagues from improperly gaining control over sports data markets. This Article proposes that the United States professional sports leagues’ recent attempts to collectivize the sale of sports game data and prevent non-league-affiliated entities from competing in the markets to collect, aggregate, and resell game data gives rise to both legal and policy concerns under federal antitrust laws. In particular, this Article analyzes whether the league-wide sale of sports game data should be viewed as a form of collusion among individual sports teams that may potentially violate section 1 of the Sherman Act, and whether league-wide efforts to secure exclusive rights to sell sports game data should constitute a potential form of exclusionary conduct under section 2 of the Sherman Act

Reshaping College Athlete Sports Betting Education

Legal sports wagering has been rapidly expanding across the United States since 2018. In the wake of the Supreme Court\u27s Murphy decision, more than twenty five states have legalized sports betting and billions of dollars have followed the cascades of legalization. As the legal market continues to grow, professional sports leagues have been quick to embrace the regulated expansion, but the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has not changed their steadfast opposition. Despite the NCAA\u27s vehement opposition, the organization has seemed to gain little traction in getting states to either wholly exclude wagering on collegiate sports or getting the federal government to preempt these nascent state initiatives. The NCAA\u27s opposition to sports betting expansion is futile. Despite the organization\u27s reluctance to embrace the now mainstream activity, the time has come for the organization to acknowledge the reality of the situation and create an environment that provides a modernized means of protecting college athletes from those who may wish to do them harm for gambling purposes. The expansion of legal sports betting is likely to be a net positive for the integrity of both betting markets and sporting events. As sports bettors begin accessing the legal regulated sports wagering market in larger numbers, illegal products and markets will likely become less attractive alternatives . The time has come for the NCAA , collegiate athletic conferences, and colleges and universities to take the steps necessary to coexist with widespread legal betting markets. This Article provides the necessary framework for collegiate sports organizations to move forward with modernizing sports wagering education and awareness for collegiate athletes through (a) adopting best practices; (b) establishing reporting processes; and (c) creating a necessary system of education that provides additional measures of protection and awareness of the threats brought on by nefarious individuals

A Sure Thing? Online Gaming and Canada

The legal status of gaming activities on First Nations land within Canada is complicated. The foci of this paper are two-fold. First, we trace the origin and expansion of First Nations gaming. Second, we analyze the potential of First Nations as hubs for the growing global e-gaming industry, with an emphasis on Internet poker and online sports wagering. We conclude by positing that the Canadian regulatory scheme presents an opportunity to First Nations in connection with e-gaming