sports betting aside, not under current interpretation of the law
-
-
Replying to @SteveRuddock @Grange95
I meant including sports betting. Let's pretend that non-binding opinion never happened.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gamblinglamb @Grange95
sports betting is a no-go (separate law PASPA) opinion came about because 2 states sought clarity on online lottery
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SteveRuddock @Grange95
But clarity was sought over potential interstate transmission of data I believe
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gamblinglamb @Grange95
no, it was intrastate lottery. a 2002 DOJ opinion said Wire act did apply, courts have found differently
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @gamblinglamb @Grange95
the key to it was offering it intrastate, the interstate transmission is not much different than progressive slots
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SteveRuddock @Grange95
But by my reading they weren't concerned about the legality of the core offering. Just ancillary services.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @SteveRuddock @Grange95
This seems pretty clear to me. Although I am 100% not claiming to know what I'm talking about.pic.twitter.com/MqiiRXRCoQ
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Sorry guys. Don't have time to dig into this right now. Will take a look tonight.
-
-
Replying to @Grange95 @SteveRuddock
No worries. Apologies for being a needy idiot :)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.