A month ago, the Nevada legislature unanimously passed Assembly Bill 114, which amended the state’s online gaming laws to allow the Governor to enter into interstate poker compacts. Governor Brian Sandoval quickly signed the measure, meaning once poker sites get up and running in the Silver State, they will be allowed to accept customers from other states, provided an agreement has been made with said state.
But that’s not it for Assembly Bill 114. Late last week, the Nevada Gaming Commission issued a Notice of Request for Comments, encouraging anyone and everyone to weigh in on interstate poker compacts. Specifically, the Commission wants to hear opinions on how these agreements should work in regards to revenue distribution and regulatory control between states.
Sally Elloyan, Executive Secretary of the Nevada Gaming Commission, put forth the following five questions for those interested in submitting comments:
1. What topics should the Board and Commission consider putting in regulation relating to an interstate agreement on interactive gaming?
2. Should revenue sharing between signatory states to a compact be based on the location of where the wager originated? Why or why not? Please be specific and cite any relevant legal support.
3. Should revenue sharing between signatory states to a compact be based on the location of the licensed interactive host? Why or why not? Please be specific and cite any relevant legal support.
4. Should the regulatory body of the signatory state where the wager originated have control over player disputes related to said players? Why or why not? Please be specific and cite any relevant legal support.
5. Please provide any other information not requested above that is relevant to regulations for interstate agreements on interactive gaming.
Considering the questions ask for suggestions to come with “relevant legal support,” respondents are likely intended to be major stakeholders in internet poker, such as casinos and other online gaming licensees (licensees are specifically singled out in the “To:” line of the Notice), rather than just “Joe poker fans.” Nonetheless, all “interested and affected” persons are eligible to file comments, provided they are filed by April 12. Replies to those comments must be filed by April 19.
The amendment of Nevada law to allow for interstate poker compacts is significant if online poker on the state level is to ever reach levels of any sort of significance. Though Nevada is the gambling hub of the United States, it one of the least populous states in the nation, with only about 2.8 million residents. A sizeable customer base is essential to the sustainability of an online poker room, let alone many online poker rooms. The ability to join with other states to increase that potential customer base would be significant. There is already plenty of precedent for this, too, as lotteries like Powerball and Mega Millions are shared by many states, often resulting in jackpots reaching into nine-figure territory.
