News In Brief: January 6-January 10, 2025

A new measure introduced in the New Hampshire legislature would raise the minimum legal age for sports betting from 18 to 21.

House Bill 83 will be introduced in the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday (January 8) when lawmakers convene the 2025 session in Concord.

If passed, the change would take effect on January 1, 2026. 

In fiscal year 2024, state revenue from sports betting was $33.65m, of which approximately 1.9 percent of gross gaming revenue (GGR) came from individuals under the age of 21. 

“Therefore, the revenue attributable to bettors aged 18 to 20 in the fiscal year 2024 would be $639,443,” according to a fiscal note attached to HB83. “Sports betting revenue can shift based on a variety of factors, however, the [New Hampshire] Lottery Commission expects this number to remain consistent for FY 2026 and beyond.”

Considering this bill is effective halfway through fiscal year 2026, state financial analysts expect a decrease in state lottery revenue, and transfer to the education trust fund “by approximately $320,000 in FY 2026 and by $640,000 in FY 2027 and each year thereafter."

A bill to allow wagering on in-state Virginia college teams has been carried over from last year’s session and will be reconsidered by lawmakers when they return to Richmond on Wednesday (January 8).

Senate Bill 124, authored by Democratic state Senator Schuyler VanValkenburg, would open the state’s betting market to wagers such as totals, but proposition bets would remain prohibited.

VanValkenburg introduced the measure for the 2024 session, but members of the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee voted to carry the bill over to this year’s session, where it will be reconsidered. Under the General Assembly’s rules, SB124 cannot be carried over into the 2026 session. 

The Virginia General Assembly will convene for a 30-day legislative session. Virginia is one of a dozen states that prohibit wagering on in-state college teams, while Massachusetts bans wagering on in-state college teams unless that game is part of a tournament.

“Any pact on revenue is indeterminate at this time,” the state's Department of Planning and Budget wrote on a 2024 session financial impact statement. “Allowing wagering on Virginia college sports may increase overall sports wagering activity and may increase taxable adjusted gross revenues, or it may shift wagering dollars and result in a net neutral tax revenue impact."

Sweden has banned Curaçao-based Versus Odds BV from operating in the country for offering games without a licence. 

The regulator found that fortunepanda.com, which is run by the operator, was targeting Swedes although it does not have the authorisation to do so.

The sites had information in Swedish, policy documents in Swedish, FAQs in Swedish and marketing materials in Swedish.

Players in Sweden were also able to register and create accounts on the site, which the regulator discovered through hidden test purchases.

Versus Odds BV was also fined €5m in 2023 by the Spanish government for operating without a licence.

Sweden's Council on Legislation has given lawmakers the go-ahead to decide if lotteries organised by political parties should still be allowed tax exemptions that apply to other public benefit lotteries. 

This proposal came in the form of a draft bill at the end of last year. The Legislative Council has now reviewed the bill and said that it does not breach the Constitution. 

Those who stood opposed had argued that getting rid of the tax exemption would violate the Constitution's freedom of association, freedom of business and property rights, in addition to EU regulations. 

The Council on Legislation nevertheless found it to be constitutional, saying it would only be in violation if all political party lotteries were not treated in the same way or if they were subject to different rules. As all will face the same restrictions, according to the draft bill, the Council found no issue. 

The state lottery authority of Rio de Janeiro has come out swinging against an injunction imposed by Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court to prevent state-licensed online betting operators from accepting wagers beyond Rio’s borders.

As reported by BNLData, Rio lottery LOTERJ on Friday (January 3) filed two legal petitions against the injunction, calling for the current terms of licences awarded to nearly two dozen operators to be respected until the case filed by Brazil’s federal government is ruled upon on its merits.

LOTERJ is seeking urgent consideration of its appeal, given the lottery had just five days to introduce geolocation requirements for the Rio market.

In a statement expressing disappointment with the initial injunction, LOTERJ said its licensing regime complied with Brazilian federal laws on online betting and e-commerce more generally.

“An eventual invalidation of the legal acts that accredited the operators would require compensation of millions of reals, loss of significant tax revenue for the federal government itself, and the disruption of an entire regulated economic sector,” LOTERJ added.

The Kansas Supreme Court has upheld a district court ruling that Pace-O-Matic (POM) lacks standing to bring its lawsuit because the company cannot show its business would be harmed by a determination by gaming regulators that skill-game devices are unlawful.

POM argued that a letter from Don Brownlee, director of the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission (KRGC), to law enforcement officials constituted a threat to its “Dragon’s Ascent” game that has been distributed state-wide in businesses who have partnered with the company.

Brownlee wrote that KRGC agents had played “Dragon’s Assent” and believed that the skill element was not sufficient to eliminate the impact that chance has on the game. 

The state's Supreme Court upheld a district court’s dismissal of claims by POM of Kansas, a subsidiary of Georgia-based POM, that the machines do not fit into the state’s definition of gambling machines.

The Kansas Reflector reported that in its original 2019 lawsuit, POM of Kansas sought a court order that the unregulated Dragon’s Ascent machine complied with state laws because it was a contest of skill. The company argued its machines were different from slot machines which are regulated games of chance. 

The justices also vacated a district court ruling that rejected claims the state’s criminal gambling statutes were unconstitutionally vague because there was no provision giving companies fair notice on whether a device was considered a game of chance or skill, according to the court’s decision.