August 1, 2016
With the State legislative session set to expire, Massachusetts lawmakers passed a bill late Sunday night to formally legalize daily fantasy sports in the Commonwealth. While other states that have recently legalized fantasy sports have employed tax and regulation schemes, Massachusetts has opted to take a different approach, at least in the short term.
How does Massachusetts’ bill differ from other legalization efforts?
March 30, 2016
Last week, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey officially filed a comprehensive regulatory regime intended to govern and oversee the fantasy sports industry in the State, joining Indiana and Virginia as the first such states to introduce industry regulation.
What are some key provisions of the new Massachusetts fantasy sports regulatory scheme?
November 16, 2015
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has definitively come down on the side of fantasy sports. Last week, the Governor announced that to get a sense of what fantasy sports contests are all about, he participated in an online contest and believes the contests to be legal games of skill.
What are the potential implications of the Governor’s announcement?
October 9, 2015
In an update to a report that we blogged about last month, following a review of the legality of fantasy sports under Massachusetts law, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey has announced that she will not be pursuing an inquiry into Boston-based DraftKings. The AG stated, in no uncertain terms, that she is not looking to shut down DraftKings, and reaffirmed that Massachusetts’ citizens should not worry about breaking the law by entering fantasy sports contests.
What will result from the AG’s determination?
A TCPA action that was filed in Massachusetts federal court against Sallie Mae, Inc. was recently dismissed because of the arbitration clause contained in the promissory notes that the plaintiff electronically signed when she secured three student loans.
Each promissory note contained an arbitration provision that required any claims relating to the collection of the debt or alleged violations of statute to be submitted to binding arbitration. Each promissory note also contained a conspicuous “right to reject” clause under the arbitration agreement, which permitted the plaintiff to submit a signed rejection notice within a specified time frame in order to opt out of the arbitration requirement. The plaintiff never submitted an opt out notice.
Thereafter, Sallie Mae began its debt collection calling campaign to try to collect the principal due and owing on its loans to the plaintiff. Over the course of two months, Sallie Mae placed close to 150 auto-dialed calls to the plaintiff’s mobile telephone through use of an automated telephone dialing system (autodialer) without the plaintiff’s consent.
The plaintiff sued Sallie Mae for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Sallie Mae promptly moved to dismiss the action or, in the alternative, stay the action and compel arbitration. The plaintiff denied the existence of a binding agreement to arbitrate and further argued that arbitration of TCPA claims in general is inappropriate because Congress intended to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for TCPA violations.
The court agreed with Sallie Mae that the plaintiff had signed several documents that consented to arbitration. Further, each promissory note conspicuously alerted the plaintiff to the arbitration agreement and the right to reject it. Therefore, absent fraud on the part of Sallie Mae, the plaintiff was bound to the terms of the parties’ agreements – regardless of whether she read or understood them. The court then considered whether the plaintiff could prove that Congress, when enacting the TCPA, intended that all TCPA claims must be exclusively heard in court. The plaintiff argued that Congress described the TCPA’s remedies in terms of court actions only and, therefore, judicial remedies cannot be waived in favor of arbitration.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in CompuCredit Corp v. Greenwood, which addressed and expressly rejected the same argument. As we previously have reported, other courts have followed suit.
The bottom line: the court dismissed the action because: (i) the parties entered into binding contracts which contained conspicuous agreements to arbitrate; (ii) the agreements to arbitrate were broad enough to encompass statutory claims (such as claims arising under the TCPA); and (iii) TCPA claims are not solely subject to resolution in courts of law.
If you are interested in learning more about this topic or the new TCPA rules that are currently in effect, please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com, or call us at (212) 246-0900.
The material contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.
Attorney Advertising
Today the Massachusetts legislature attached an addendum to its 2014 fiscal year budget proposal calling for the legalization and regulation of online poker. The addendum was sponsored by no less than 18 Massachusetts State Representatives and, like the law passed in Nevada, will be limited only to online poker. Other Internet gambling games, such as black jack and roulette, are not up for consideration.
As some of you may be aware, the Massachusetts legislature has already approved a bill that will authorize brick and mortar casinos beginning in 2016 and is currently vetting potential bidders for casino operator licenses. Given the fact that the bill only authorizes 3 casinos to operate within the State, you can expect the bidding war to be fierce.
Despite the fact that brick and mortar casinos will not begin operations until 2016, according to the budget addendum, Massachusetts may be looking to allow Internet poker to go live early as next year. Consistent with the brick and mortar casinos to be authorized within the State, Massachusetts will only issue 3 online poker operator licenses. The licenses will be good for 10 years and the operators must have age verification systems in place to assure participants are over the age of 21. Moreover, the licensed operators will need to launch their operations within 30 days of receiving their respective licenses, or risk revocation and/or financial penalties for acting in bad faith.
While only 3 online poker operator licenses will be granted, the proposed addendum does not limit the amount of software providers, affiliate marketers and payment processors that will be licensed. Surprisingly, the addendum does state that all of the licensees, both operators and service providers, must be located within the State of Massachusetts, unless an out-of-state licensee is granted an exception and approved by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
The licensing fee for Internet poker operators is $10 million dollars, which will be credited towards the entity’s first 2 years of taxes. This appears to be the standard licensing fee structure for online poker operators, as already demonstrated by New Jersey, Delaware and Nevada.
The easy answer to this question is: not at this time. However, Massachusetts has not directly given their opinion on interstate compacts and has thus far only addressed intrastate online poker. With Nevada authorizing and recently soliciting comments on their soon-to-be passed interstate poker compact bill, the addition of another viable and heavily populated state, such as Massachusetts, could have a significant impact on the future of online poker. Should Nevada’s interstate compact bill provide tax royalty incentives to foreign states, there is a good chance that states such as Massachusetts may be enticed to change their stance and allow their residents to participate in gambling outside their borders.
The development of Massachusetts’s online poker regime is a significant topic for all gaming attorneys and those interested in Internet poker and gambling in general.
If you are interested in learning more about this topic or pursuing a venture in this area, please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com, or call us at (212) 246-0900.
Attorney Advertising