Due to the data leak of DraftKings in the fall, the Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) industry decided to create bills across the US to regulate Daily Fantasy Sports sites in the country.
Beside the efforts of regulating DFS, the idea is to advocate for a regulation that can be applied for different types of online gaming.
This idea, called an “omnibus” approach to online gaming, hasn’t had a lot of support yet, but it is starting to be backed up in some places.
A Los Angeles Times house editorial entitled “License and regulate all online gaming sites, not just fantasy sports” stated why such an approach would be beneficial:
“The smart approach is to regulate the leagues, ideally within the context of a comprehensive approach to online gaming. That way the state can protect consumers against fly-by-night sites while requiring companies to use sophisticated technology to block minors and problem gamblers, pay fees that can be used for oversight and enforcement, and guard consumers against insiders competing unfairly for jackpots, as both FanDuel and DraftKings were accused of allowing last year. None of those protections is assured online today.” [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][…] ”The argument for setting up a safer environment for fantasy sports games applies in spades to online poker.”
California is currently dealing with DFS and online poker bills. Whereas the DFS bill is having a fast legislative process and will probably pass this week, the online poker bill hasn’t made much progress for years.
There is a big different on how online poker would be regulated if compared to the mechanics of how Daily Fantasy Sports would be regulated. For instance, the fees and taxes to legalize and maintain an online DFS site would be much lower than an online poker regulatory framework.
Along with the L.A. Times, others have also considered the possibility of a comprehensive online gaming approach.
Massachusetts has also been contemplating an omnibus online gambling approach. Like California, Massachusetts is a flashpoint of dealing with online poker and DFS.
After considering the legalization of DFS for several months, the state’s gaming commission seems to think that the omnibus approach is the best way to go. They released the following note with its “white paper”:
“The last section of this paper will suggest the possibility of the Legislature establishing a regulatory environment which is applicable to all online gaming technologies (not just DFS), assigning that regulatory structure to an agency for implementation, and leaving the daily work of drafting and adapting regulation of new gaming types to the regulatory agency that can be nimble and flexible in responding to technological gaming innovation.”
This is of course only a recommendation and for this approach to become legal, the legislature would have to pass a bill. However no bill has yet being introduced on this matter.
This approach is intriguing, but doesn’t mean states will approve it and legalize it.
Online poker and DFS have wholly different positions. DFS is already available in the US. DSF is offered to US residents, and will continue to exist if legislatures don’t act, whereas US online poker is only legal in three states in the US, Delaware, Nevada and New Jersey.
In the US, there is a momentum to deal with Daily Fantasy Sports but not with online poker.
However, by regulating Daily Fantasy Sports states won’t realize such a big gain from taxing it, as some may think. The revenue created by DFS is relatively small and lawmakers will soon learn it.
If an omnibus framework would pass, much more revenue would be generated. The question is if states are willing to consider such a comprehensive approach any time soon.
Unfortunately, It seems more likely they won’t focus on this approach in the short term.[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]