{"title":"Notes from the Editor","authors":"Steve Ruddock","doi":"10.1089/glr2.2023.29080.editorial","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gaming Law ReviewVol. 27, No. 5 Notes from the EditorFree AccessNotes from the EditorSteve RuddockSteve RuddockSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:15 Jun 2023https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2023.29080.editorialAboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail The theme of this month's Editor's Notes is, get it right the first time. One of the top issues the U.S. gambling industry will need to grapple with in the coming months and years is clarity, or better said, lack thereof. Anyone reading this knows how varied, complex, and contradictory gaming laws can be. Add to that the frenetic pace of legalized sports betting in the U.S., and you have a recipe for disaster, and an additional murky layer of regulations isn't helping.Is it any wonder U.S. sports betting operators don't know what type of marketing is and isn't allowed? Whether it's Barstool's “Can't Lose Parlays” or Fanatics offering free bets to customers who purchase merchandise, operators are in a difficult position.Further complicating factors, 12 months ago, using terms like “risk-free bet” was commonplace, as were partnerships between sportsbooks and colleges. In a rush to legalize and launch, states failed to consider the ends operators would go to as they fought for market share and instead quibbled about tax rates and whether they should prohibit betting on in-state college teams.Now some states are trying to correct and clarify. They are finding that it is much easier to build something correctly from the start than go in and try to solve issues after the fact. The corrections add layers of complexity or conflict with other aspects of the laws and regulations, resulting in more problems to be fixed.That should be a lesson for the dozen or so states that haven't passed sports betting laws or the 43 states that may pass online poker or online casino laws. Get it right the first time.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 27Issue 5Jun 2023 InformationCopyright 2023, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Steve Ruddock.Notes from the Editor.Gaming Law Review.Jun 2023.233-233.http://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2023.29080.editorialPublished in Volume: 27 Issue 5: June 15, 2023PDF download","PeriodicalId":44210,"journal":{"name":"Gaming Law Review-Economics Regulation Compliance and Policy","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gaming Law Review-Economics Regulation Compliance and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2023.29080.editorial","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Gaming Law ReviewVol. 27, No. 5 Notes from the EditorFree AccessNotes from the EditorSteve RuddockSteve RuddockSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:15 Jun 2023https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2023.29080.editorialAboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail The theme of this month's Editor's Notes is, get it right the first time. One of the top issues the U.S. gambling industry will need to grapple with in the coming months and years is clarity, or better said, lack thereof. Anyone reading this knows how varied, complex, and contradictory gaming laws can be. Add to that the frenetic pace of legalized sports betting in the U.S., and you have a recipe for disaster, and an additional murky layer of regulations isn't helping.Is it any wonder U.S. sports betting operators don't know what type of marketing is and isn't allowed? Whether it's Barstool's “Can't Lose Parlays” or Fanatics offering free bets to customers who purchase merchandise, operators are in a difficult position.Further complicating factors, 12 months ago, using terms like “risk-free bet” was commonplace, as were partnerships between sportsbooks and colleges. In a rush to legalize and launch, states failed to consider the ends operators would go to as they fought for market share and instead quibbled about tax rates and whether they should prohibit betting on in-state college teams.Now some states are trying to correct and clarify. They are finding that it is much easier to build something correctly from the start than go in and try to solve issues after the fact. The corrections add layers of complexity or conflict with other aspects of the laws and regulations, resulting in more problems to be fixed.That should be a lesson for the dozen or so states that haven't passed sports betting laws or the 43 states that may pass online poker or online casino laws. Get it right the first time.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 27Issue 5Jun 2023 InformationCopyright 2023, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Steve Ruddock.Notes from the Editor.Gaming Law Review.Jun 2023.233-233.http://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2023.29080.editorialPublished in Volume: 27 Issue 5: June 15, 2023PDF download