BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
AB 2863
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Adam Gray, Chair
AB 2863
(Gray) - As Amended April 20, 2016
SUBJECT: Gambling: Internet poker
SUMMARY: This bill, which would be known as the Internet Poker
Consumer Protection Act of 2016 (Act), would establish a
framework to authorize intrastate Internet poker in California,
as specified. Specifically, this bill:
1) Establishes the Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act of
2016, which would establish a framework to authorize intrastate
Internet poker, as specified.
2) Provides "Eligible entity" would include both of the
following: (i) A card room that operates, as defined, whose
owner or owners have been authorized, subject to oversight by,
and in good standing with, the applicable state regulatory
authorities. (ii) A federally recognized California Indian tribe
that operates a gaming facility pursuant to a facility license
issued in accordance with a tribal gaming ordinance approved by
the Chair of the National Indian Gaming Commission and that is
eligible to conduct real-money poker at that facility.
3) Provides an entity, as defined above shall have operated its
AB 2863
Page 2
land-based gaming facility for at least five years immediately
preceding its application to secure a license to operate an
Internet poker Web site pursuant to this Act, and shall be in
good standing during that time period with the applicable
federal, state, and tribal regulatory authorities.
4) Provides that a person who is 21 years of age or older and
located within California is hereby permitted to participate as
a registered player in an authorized Internet poker game
provided by a licensed operator on an authorized poker Web site.
The bill does not authorize any game offered in Nevada or New
Jersey other than poker.
5) Provides that within 270 days after the effective date of
the Act, the California Gambling Control Commission (CGCC), and
any other state agency with a duty pursuant to this Act, shall,
in consultation with the California Department of Justice (DOJ
or department) and tribes, adopt regulations pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act, as defined, to implement this
bill, and to facilitate the operation of authorized poker Web
sites and expedite the state's receipt of revenues, as defined.
6) Authorized Internet poker games may be offered only by
entities licensed pursuant to this Act. An eligible entity
seeking to offer authorized Internet poker games shall apply to
the department for a determination of suitability. If the
department determines the applicant is suitable to receive a
license, the applicant shall then apply to the commission for an
operator license. The applicant shall pay an
application-processing fee sufficient to cover the reasonable
costs associated with the determination of suitability and the
issuance of the license.
7) States employees of the licensed operator shall undergo a
suitability review and obtain work permits, as specified.
AB 2863
Page 3
Owners, officers, and directors of licensed operators shall also
undergo a suitability review and obtain employee work permits,
as defined. CGCC may refuse to issue a license to an applicant,
or suspend or revoke a license of a licensed operator that fails
to comply with this requirement.
8) Provides an applicant for an operator license pursuant to
this bill that is a tribe shall include with its license
application a limited waiver of the applicant's sovereign
immunity. This limited waiver shall apply exclusively to the
state, and no other party, solely for the limited purpose of
enforcing this chapter and any regulations adopted pursuant to
this chapter, and with regard to any claim, sanction, or penalty
arising therefrom against the licensed operator by the state,
and for no other purpose.
9) Provides that an operator license denoting full licensure
shall be issued for a term of seven years. Each initial
operator license issued pursuant to this section shall take
effect on the same date. A licensee's employees in direct
contact with registered players shall be physically present in
the state. All primary servers, facilities, bank accounts, and
accounting records of the licensee related to authorize Internet
poker shall be located in the state, except as defined.
10) Provides in addition to any other confidentiality
protections afforded to license applicants, the state and its
agencies shall treat the proprietary information of a license
applicant as confidential to protect the license applicant and
to protect the security of any prospective authorized poker Web
site. The Act does not prohibit the exchange of confidential
information among state agencies considering a license
application.
11) States an entity seeking to act as a service provider shall
AB 2863
Page 4
apply to the department for a determination of suitability. If
DOJ determines the applicant is suitable to receive a license,
the applicant shall then apply to CGCC for a service provider
license, and obtain a service provider license, before providing
goods or services to a licensed operator in connection with the
operation of an authorized poker Web site. DOJ shall review the
suitability of an applicant for a service provider license. The
applicant for a service provider license shall pay an
application-processing fee sufficient to cover the reasonable
costs associated with the determination of suitability and the
issuance of the license. DOJ may establish a process to conduct
a preliminary determination of suitability based on a partial
investigation. A partial investigation is intended to screen
out applicants that do not meet the suitability requirements, as
defined.
12) States a full investigation shall include a review and
evaluation of the service provider's qualifications and
experience to provide the services anticipated, which shall
include the required submission of a report prepared on each
service provider by an outside firm contracted and supervised by
the department, in a format developed by the department, and at
the service provider's expense. The report shall include
information necessary for DOJ to make a determination of
suitability, as specified in regulations adopted pursuant to
this Act, consisting of, but not limited to, personal history,
prior activities and associations, credit history, civil
litigation, past and present financial affairs and standing, and
business activities, including whether the applicant or an
affiliate of the applicant has a financial interest in any
business or organization that is or was engaged in any form of
gaming or transactions related to gaming prohibited by the law
of the federal or state jurisdiction in which those activities
took place. DOJ may specify additional requirements regarding
the contents of the report and other information or
documentation required to be submitted.
AB 2863
Page 5
13) Provides DOJ shall issue a finding that a license applicant
is suitable to obtain a license only if, based on all of the
information and documents submitted, the department is satisfied
that each of the persons subject to a determination of
suitability pursuant to this article is both of the following:
(1) A person of good character, honesty, and integrity, or, if
an entity, in good standing in its jurisdiction of organization
and in all other jurisdictions in which it is qualified, or
should be qualified, to do business. (2) A person whose prior
activities, criminal record, if any, reputation, habits, and
associations do not pose a threat to the public interest of the
state, or to the effective regulation and control of authorized
Internet poker games, or create or enhance the dangers of
unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices, methods, and
activities in the conduct of authorized Internet poker games or
in the carrying on of the business and financial arrangements
incidental thereto.
14) States DOJ shall issue a finding that a license applicant
is not suitable to obtain a license if it finds that a person
subject to a determination of suitability pursuant to this
article is described by any of the following: (1) The person
failed to clearly establish eligibility and qualifications in
accordance with this Act. (2) The person failed to timely
provide information, documentation, and assurances required by
this Act or requested by the department, or, with respect to a
licensed applicant, failed to reveal any fact material to
qualification, or supplied information that is untrue or
misleading as to a material fact pertaining to the suitability
criteria. (3) The person has been convicted of a felony,
including a conviction by a federal court or a court in another
state or foreign jurisdiction for a crime that would constitute
a felony if committed in California, except that a conviction of
a felony involving the hunting or fishing rights of a tribal
member while on his or her reservation shall not be included
among the class of disqualifying felonies. (4) The person has
been convicted of a misdemeanor in a jurisdiction involving
dishonesty or moral turpitude within the 10-year period
AB 2863
Page 6
immediately preceding the submission of the application, unless
the applicant has been granted relief, as defined. (5) The
person has associated with criminal profiteering activity or
organized crime, as defined in the Penal Code. (6) The person
has contemptuously defied a legislative investigative body, or
other official investigative body of a state or of the United
States or a foreign jurisdiction, when that body is engaged in
the investigation of crimes relating to poker, official
corruption related to poker activities, or criminal profiteering
activity or organized crime, as defined in Section 186.2 of the
Penal Code. (7) The person is less than 21 years of age. (8)
The person has been convicted in a court of competent
jurisdiction of a felony consisting of either having accepted a
bet over the Internet in violation of United States or
California law, or having aided or abetted that unlawful
activity.
15) Provides this Act shall not become operative until criteria
are established by statute to address involvement in Internet
betting prior to the state's authorization of Internet poker
pursuant to this bill.
16) Provides does not restrict the authority of a tribe that is
a licensed operator or that owns a tribal enterprise that is a
licensed operator to conduct suitability reviews of its service
providers, as defined.
17) Provides a licensed operator shall ensure that registered
players are eligible to play authorized Internet poker games and
implement appropriate data security standards to prevent access
by a person whose age and location have not been verified, as
specified. A registered player shall be physically located
within the State of California at the time of gambling.
Provides DOJ may assess a civil penalty against a person who
violates this provision, whether a licensed operator, owner,
service provider, or player, as specified.
AB 2863
Page 7
18) Provides a licensed operator shall register players and
establish registered player accounts prior to play. A
registered player account may be established in person, or by
United States mail, telephone, or by any electronic means. To
register and establish a registered player account to play poker
with real money, a person shall provide all of the following
registration information: (1) First name and surname; (2)
Principal residence address; (3) Telephone number; (4) Social
security number; (5) Identification or certification to prove
that person is at least 21 years of age; (6) Valid email
address: and (7) A registered player shall not establish more
than one account on the same authorized poker Web site.
19) Provides all personally identifiable information about
registered players shall be shared with state agencies,
including, but not limited to, DOJ, CGCC, the Franchise Tax
Board, and the Department of Child Support Services as necessary
to assist them in fulfilling their obligations, as specified.
20) States a licensed operator shall protect the privacy of
registered players and their personally identifiable
information, as specified. A licensed operator shall comply
with all applicable state and federal privacy and data
protection laws. A licensed operator shall destroy personally
identifiable information if both of the following apply: (1) The
information is no longer reasonably necessary for the purpose
for which it was collected. (2) There are no pending requests or
orders for access to the information, as specified.
21) Provides a licensed operator shall establish a book of
accounts and regularly audit all of its financial records and
reports, as specified. Provides a licensed operator shall make
all financial records established and maintained, as defined,
including, but not limited to, all books, records, documents,
AB 2863
Page 8
financial information, and financial reports, available on an
electronic basis, as required by CGCC, DOJ, or other state
agencies, as specified.
22) States a licensed operator shall: (a) Implement technical
systems that materially aid the CGCC in the protection of
registered players. (b) Ensure that all transactions involving
registered players' funds are recoverable by the system in the
event of a failure or malfunction. (c) Document and implement
preventive and detective controls addressing money laundering
and fraud risks.
23) States a licensed operator may charge registered players to
play in authorized Internet poker games, as defined.
24) Provides in support of the application for a license
pursuant to this Act, prior to offering games or accepting bets
on its authorized poker Web site, the licensed operator shall
remit to the Treasurer a one-time license deposit in the amount
of ____ dollars ($____), to be deposited into the General Fund,
as defined, and credited against charges imposed on the licensed
operator's gross gaming revenues.
25) Provides in consideration of the substantial value of each
license, a licensed operator shall remit to the Treasurer on a
quarterly basis for deposit in the General Fund, an amount equal
to ____ percent of its gross gaming revenues. Gross gaming
revenue is defined as "the total amount of moneys paid by
players to the operator to participate in authorized games
before deducting the cost of operating those activities except
for fees to marketing affiliates and payment processing fees."
AB 2863
Page 9
26) States each licensed operator shall pay a regulatory fee,
to be deposited in the Internet Poker Fund, in an amount to be
determined by the CGCC, for the reasonable costs of license
oversight, consumer protection, state regulation, problem
gambling programs, and other purposes related to this chapter,
determined on a pro rata basis depending on the number of
licensed operators in the state.
27) Requires the first $60,000,000 collected each fiscal year
pursuant to the license deposit and from the tax on iPoker
operations to be deposited into the California Horse Racing
Internet Poker Account, which would be established in the
General Fund. The bill would continuously appropriate the funds
as follows:
(a) One and three-twentieths percent to the defined
contribution retirement plan for
California-licensed jockeys, as established in current law.
(b) One and three-twentieths percent to provide health and
welfare benefits for California- licensed
jockeys, former California-licensed jockeys, and their
dependents, as defined.
(c) Two and three-tenths percent to supplement the pension
plan for pari-mutuel employees administered
on behalf of the labor organization that has historically
represented the employees
who accept or process any form of wagering at the horse racing
meetings and for other
entities licensed to conduct wagering on horse races in
California. Moneys distributed pursuant to
this provision shall supplement, and not supplant, moneys
distributed to that fund
AB 2863
Page 10
pursuant to this chapter or any other law.
(d) Ninety-five and four-tenths percent to racing associations
or fairs as commissions, to horsemen
participating in the racing meeting in the form of purses, and
as incentive awards, in
the same relative proportion as they were generated or earned at
each racing association
or fair on races conducted or imported by that racing
association or fair during the prior
calendar year, as specified.
(e) Five percent to the State Treasury to the credit of the
Fair and Exposition Fund, to benefit
state designated fairs, as defined.
28) States each licensed operator shall pay a regulatory fee,
to be deposited in the Internet Poker Fund, in an amount to be
determined by CGCC, for the reasonable costs of license
oversight, consumer protection, state regulation, problem
gambling programs, and other purposes as determined on a pro
rata basis depending on the number of licensed operators in the
state.
29) Provides the licensed operator shall facilitate the
collection of personal income taxes from registered players by
the Franchise Tax Board and shall be responsible for providing
current and accurate documentation on a timely basis to all
state agencies, as provided.
30) States a licensee shall act expeditiously to cure any
violation of this chapter, or any regulation adopted pursuant to
this bill, in the offer or administration of authorized Internet
poker games that interferes with its obligations to the state or
AB 2863
Page 11
registered players under this Act.
31) Provides DOJ shall protect the rights and assets of
registered players on an authorized poker Web site if the
licensed operator's license pursuant to this ACT is revoked or
the licensed operator becomes bankrupt.
32) Provides all facilities, software, including downloadable
programs, and any other property, both tangible and intangible,
used by the licensed operator in offering authorized Internet
poker games for play on an authorized poker Web site shall be
the property of the licensed operator or its licensed service
providers, and shall be subject to the review of the department
and the approval of the CGCC.
33) Provides the department or CGCC may contract with other
public or private entities, including, but not limited to,
state, tribal, and international regulatory agencies, for the
provision of services related to a responsibility imposed on the
department or CGCC by this Act, as defined.
34) Provides a licensed operator shall use its best efforts to
protect registered players. Subject to the approval of DOJ, and
consistent with uniform standards established by the department
by regulation, each licensed operator shall establish
administrative procedures to resolve registered player
complaints, as specified.
35) Provides the Treasurer shall transfer all amounts received,
as specified, to the Controller for deposit in the Internet
Poker Fund, which is created in the State Treasury, to be
administered by DOJ. All moneys in the fund are continuously
appropriated to the department and CGCC, without regard to
fiscal years, in the amounts necessary for the department and
AB 2863
Page 12
the CGCC to perform their duties under the Act.
36) Establishes the Unlawful Gambling Enforcement Fund within
the General Fund for purposes of ensuring adequate resources for
law enforcement charged with enforcing the prohibitions and
protections of the provisions, as described above. Authorizes
the Attorney General, and other public prosecutors, as
specified, to bring a civil action to recover a civil penalty in
an unspecified amount against a person who engages in those
prohibited activities described above, or other specified
unlawful gambling activities in connection with the use of an
Internet access device. Provides for an unspecified percentage
of revenues from civil penalties collected to be deposited into
the fund and used for law enforcement activities pursuant to
these provisions, upon appropriation by the Legislature.
37) Provides that any violation of the Internet Poker Consumer
Protection Act of 2016 is punishable as a felony
38) Requires the CGCC, in consultation with the department, the
Treasurer, and the Franchise Tax Board, to issue a report to the
Legislature describing the state's efforts to meet the policy
goals articulated in this bill within one year of the operative
date of this bill and, annually, thereafter.
39) Requires the Bureau of State Audits, at least 4 years after
the issue date of any license by the state, but no later than 5
years after that date, to issue a report to the Legislature
detailing the implementation of this bill, as specified.
40) Provides the Act shall remain in effect until January 1,
2024.
AB 2863
Page 13
EXISTING LAW:
1) In 2000, Californians approved Proposition 1A which amended
Article IV, Section 19 of the State Constitution to allow slot
machines, lottery games, and banking and percentage card games
on Indian tribal lands if: (1) the Governor and an Indian tribe
reach agreement on a compact; (2) the Legislature approves the
compact; and (3) the federal government approves the compact.
Proposition 1A was a follow-up to a court's determination that a
1998 statutory initiative authorizing tribal casinos
(Proposition 5) was unconstitutional. The State of California
has signed and ratified Tribal-State Gaming Compacts with 72
Tribes and there are Secretarial Procedures in effect with one
Tribe. There are currently 60 casinos operated by 58 Tribes.
2) Existing federal law, the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act (IGRA) of 1988, established the jurisdictional framework
that presently governs Indian gaming. Under IGRA, before a tribe
may lawfully conduct class III gaming (games commonly played at
casinos, such as slot machines and black jack), the following
conditions must be met: (1) The particular form of class III
gaming must be permitted in the state; (2) The tribe and the
state must have negotiated a compact that has been approved by
the Secretary of the Interior; and (3) The tribe must have
adopted a tribal gaming ordinance that has been approved by the
chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission.
3) States the Legislature has no power to authorize, and shall
prohibit, casino games of the type currently operating in Nevada
and New Jersey.
4) In 1984, California voters passed Proposition 37, an
exception to the State Constitution prohibition against
lotteries. Proposition 37 included the California Lottery Act
and created the California State Lottery.
AB 2863
Page 14
5) In 1933, California voters passed Proposition 5, an
exception to the State Constitution, legalizing pari-mutuel
wagering on horse racing. Regulation of horse racing is the
responsibility of the California Horse Racing Board, which was
established by the Legislature in 1933.
6) Provides an exception to the California Constitution to
allow the Legislature to authorize cities and counties to
provide for charitable bingo games. (Cal. Const. art. IV, §§
19(b), 19(c).)
7) The Gambling Control Act of 1997 established the CGCC to
regulate legal gaming in California and the Bureau of Gambling
Control within the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate
and enforce controlled gambling activities in California. It
prohibits gambling in a city or county that does not have an
ordinance governing certain aspects of the operation of gambling
establishments, including the "hours of operation" of gambling
establishments. The Act granted the CGCC licensing jurisdiction
over the operation of card clubs and of all persons having an
interest in the ownership or operation of card clubs.
8) Provides that, until January 1, 2020, if a local
jurisdiction had not authorized legal gaming within its
boundaries prior to January 1, 1996, then it is prohibited from
authorizing legal gaming. Furthermore, until January 1, 2020,
the California Gambling Commission is prohibited from issuing a
gambling license for a gambling establishment that was not
licensed to operate on December 31, 1999, unless an application
to operate that establishment was on file with the division
prior to September 1, 2000.
9) Provides "Gambling operation" means exposing for play one or
AB 2863
Page 15
more controlled games that are dealt, operated, carried on,
conducted, or maintained for commercial gain.
10) Provides that a "banking game" or "banked game" does not
include a controlled game if the published rules of the game
feature a player-dealer position and provides that this position
must be continuously and systematically rotated amongst each of
the participants during the play of the game.
11) Authorizes and defines "Advance Deposit Wagering" as a form
of pari-mutuel horse wagering in which a person "establishes an
account with a board-approved betting system or wagering hub
where the account owner provides 'wagering instructions'
authorizing the entity holding the account to place wagers on
the owner's behalf via the phone or Internet.
12) Existing federal law, the Unlawful Internet Gaming
Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), prevents U.S. financial
institutions from processing payments to online gambling
businesses. The UIGEA does exempt three categories of
transactions: intra-tribal, intrastate, and interstate horse
racing. The UIGEA defines intrastate transactions are bets or
wagers that are made exclusively within a single state, whose
state laws or regulations contain certain safeguards regarding
such transactions, expressly authorize the bet or wager and the
method by which the bet or wager is made, and do not violate any
provisions of applicable federal gaming statues.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
Purpose of the bill : For over a century, gambling in California
AB 2863
Page 16
was confined to horse racing tracks and card rooms. Then, the
California Lottery was authorized in 1984 and, through a series
of federal court cases, changes in federal law, and Proposition
5 and 1A-casino gambling on Native American tribal lands emerged
in the last decade of the 20th century. Now it appears that the
Internet poker might be the next phase of gambling expansion in
California.
The author states, in addition, to countless meetings held among
the various stakeholders and interested parties, both supporting
and opposing the concept of Internet poker, the Legislature has
held numerous informational hearings and taken hours of
testimony over the past 8+ years on the issues and challenges
surrounding the authorization of intrastate Internet poker in
California. On June 24, 2015, the Assembly Governmental
Organization Committee held a lengthy informational hearing
titled "The Legality of Internet Poker - How Prepared Is
California to Regulate It." These hearings have helped to
identify problems and solutions that have narrowed the
differences among various stakeholders.
The author emphasizes that although various stakeholders and
interested parties have different views relating to the
legalization of iPoker in California, those entities have worked
together in good faith toward the development of a regulatory
framework. AB 2863 is the product of hours of meetings and
negotiations with all interested stakeholders.
AB 2863
Page 17
It has been reported that well over a million Californians are
playing Internet poker on Web sites run by offshore companies
that are not regulated or licensed by any U.S. government entity
- these poker players are at the mercy of unscrupulous operators
who may cheat them out of their money with absolutely no
recourse. As a result, Californians who play poker on these
websites have no way of protecting sensitive personal
information when they use their credit card or provide other
financial information to such a site. In addition, hundreds of
millions of dollars are leaving the California economy, money
(and tax revenues) that could stay in the state if intrastate
iPoker was legalized in California.
AB 2863 contains numerous consumer protections to Californians
who play online poker, ensure that the revenues from online
poker are realized in California, and protect the public
interest by ensuring that the various aspects of online poker
are sanctioned and regulated by the state. This bill will
create a new and innovative industry in California that will
provide economic inducements to California's economy, including
job creation. This bill includes strict standards to ensure
that the online poker games are fair, played by persons of legal
age who are located in California, and using advanced
technologies to identify and restrict access by minors.
The author states that this bill includes a strong regulatory
framework that protects Californians and cracks down on illegal
online gaming, replacing it with safeguards against compulsive
gambling, money laundering, fraud, and identity theft. In
addition, the bill contains detailed criteria in the areas of
AB 2863
Page 18
licensing, enforcement, and regulatory oversight.
The author states, the bill addresses one of the major
roadblocks that has prevented movement of a iPoker proposal over
the years pertaining to California's horse racing industry being
an eligible entity for licensure. AB 2863 creates the
California Horse Racing Internet Poker Account, which would
require the first $60 million collected annually from license
fees and taxes on gross gaming revenues be deposited into the
fund. The continuously appropriate fund would be distributed as
follows: 1) a contribution retirement and welfare plan for
California-licensed jockeys, past and present, as well as their
dependents; 2) to supplement the pension plan for pari-mutuel
employees administered on behalf of the labor organization that
has historically represented the employees; 3) to racing
associations or fairs as commissions and to horsemen purses; 4)
breeder incentive awards; and 5) California's network of fairs.
The subsidy is intended to resolve one of the main points of
contention amongst the state's diverse gambling interests. Over
the years, many tribal gaming interests have stated they that
would not support an iPoker proposal where horse racing is an
eligible entity for licensure. Specific tribes have stated that
only they and card-clubs have the right to offer live poker in
the state, and if horse racing were allowed to participate, it
would violate this exclusive right. The author states that a
subsidy in lieu of a license will allow this long-storied
agribusiness to continue to operate and thrive in California
while not being financial impacted by the further expansion of
iGaming in California.
The author believes this bill will create well-regulated iPoker
framework in California that will be used as a national model
for creating jobs and revenue for the state while providing a
safe, regulated, and responsible entertainment option for its
AB 2863
Page 19
residents.
General Background : Some gaming experts say that legal gambling
over the Internet is not just inevitable but mainstream and
readily available to anyone desiring to partake in this
activity. Recent reports state that Americans spent
approximately $2.6 billion gambling online in 2012, despite it
being illegal. Americans generate nearly 10 percent of the
current $33 billion worldwide online gambling market. Most of
that money went to illegal offshore gambling websites, meaning
the websites are operated in other countries where online
gambling is regulated or regulation is non-existent. These
gaming sites are out of the reach of U.S. courts and regulators,
exposing online players to significant risks without effective
legal recourse.
Experts state that by 2020 the online gaming market is expected
to witness substantial growth. This may be attributed to
increasing number of users taking up online gaming as an
entertainment tool. Furthermore, increasing consumer awareness
towards interactive entertainment systems is also expected to
drive the online gaming market demand. Availability of high
speed internet connectivity, efficient hardware compatibility,
sophisticated gaming techniques and increased consumer
disposable income are some of the key factors driving the online
gaming market.
Many gaming experts believe that legalizing intrastate Internet
gaming could have a significant positive impact on state
revenues by redirecting gaming revenues into a domestic, legal
operation that otherwise currently go abroad. However, others
have stated this is not easy because it would take time to
establish operations, approve contracts, games, hubs, and
convince existing players to redirect their gambling to legal,
domestic sites.
The global legal framework for Internet gambling is a
AB 2863
Page 20
complicated mix of laws and regulations. In the United States,
both federal and state statutes apply. Gambling is generally
regulated at the state level, with federal law supporting state
laws and regulations to ensure that interstate and foreign
commerce do not circumvent them.
In October 2006, the United States Congress passed the Unlawful
Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), 31 U.S.C. 5361 et
seq., which generally prohibits the use of banking instruments,
including credit cards, checks, and fund transfers, for
interstate Internet gambling, essentially prohibiting online
gambling by United States citizens, but which includes
exceptions that permit individual states to create a regulatory
framework to enable intrastate Internet gambling, provided that
the bets or wagers are made exclusively within a single state
under specified circumstances.
On April 15, 2011, three online poker companies (PokerStars,
Full Tilt Poker, Absolute Poker/UltimateBet) were indicted for
violating U.S. laws that prohibit the acceptance of any
financial instrument in connection with unlawful Internet
gambling. The companies argued that poker is a game of skill
rather than a game of chance, and therefore, online poker is not
unlawful Internet gambling. The indictments, quickly dubbed
"Black Friday" by the poker community, came as a shock to a
large number of Americans - estimated between 1.3 million and 15
million - who were playing poker online for real money.
On July 31, 2012, the U.S. Attorney's Office announced that the
United States had entered into settlement agreements with
PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker. U.S. District Judge Leonard B.
Sand approved the $731 million settlement. Under the terms of
the settlement with Full Tilt Poker, the company agreed to
forfeit virtually all of its assets to the U.S. to fully resolve
the charges in the complaint. Under the terms of the settlement
with PokerStars, the company agreed to forfeit $547 million to
the U.S. and to reimburse the approximately $184 million owed by
Full Tilt to foreign players in order to fully resolve the
allegations in the complaint. The settlement further provided
AB 2863
Page 21
that PokerStars would acquire the forfeited Full Tilt assets
from the government. The settlements with regard to Full Tilt
Poker and PokerStars, and a proposed settlement with Absolute
Poker, "did not constitute admissions of any wrongdoing,
culpability, liability, or guilt by any parties."
On July 14, 2011, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sent a letter to U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder asking the U.S. Department of
Justice to clarify its position regarding enforcement of online
gambling laws.
On December 23, 2011, the Office of Legal Counsel of the DOJ
issued a Memorandum Opinion, as an attachment letter to Senator
Harry Reid's July 2011 request. The opinion letter rejected
DOJ's long-held interpretation of the Wire Act, by concluding
that the Act prohibits only sports betting. Until then, DOJ had
consistently declared that the Act barred both "casino games and
sports betting." DOJ noted that there appeared to be a conflict
between the Act and UIGEA. DOJ stated that the "unlawful
Internet gaming" of the UIGEA does not include intra-state
transactions that, among other things, are routed across state
lines. DOJ's new policy did not constitute federal regulation
of Internet gambling, but removed obstacles, which prevented
state governments from enacting legislation, rules and
regulations to regulate intrastate iGaming and issue licenses to
Internet gambling operators and their technology providers.
In summary, federal law prohibits online gambling by U.S.
citizens but includes specific provisions that allow individual
states to offer intrastate Internet gaming, provided that state
laws permitting and regulating that activity could impose
reasonable protections against participation by underage persons
or by persons located outside the boundaries of the states. So
far, only three U.S. states allow licensed online casinos and
poker sites. These states are Nevada, Delaware, and New Jersey.
In all three states, a significant portion of the established
gaming interests in the states bought into the idea that online
AB 2863
Page 22
gambling could help - not harm - their business models.
California's Involvement in iGaming Legislation : At stated
above, under the terms of UIGEA, states may authorize
intrastate Internet poker. California, however, currently has
no such law. As such, it is legal to play poker in Native
American tribal casinos and state-approved card clubs inside
California, but not legal to play online poker on a site that
allows players from California, other states, and other
countries to wager against each other. The effect of the
federal law prohibiting interstate internet gambling and
California's lack of a law authorizing intrastate internet
gambling has been to channel players in California to offshore
sites.
Internet gambling has been a topic of consideration in
California for some time. With a population of nearly 38
million, California has the potential to be a lucrative Internet
gambling market should the state choose to regulate Internet
gambling, beyond pari-mutuel wagering on horseracing, in the
future.
From 2008-2014, eleven legislative proposals have been
introduced in California in an attempt to change the nature of
Internet gambling. Each bill was referred to the respective
Governmental Organization Committee in each house but no
testimony or vote was ever taken on the issue.
In 2015, four bills (AB 431-Gray, AB 9-Gatto, AB 167-
Jones-Sawyer, and SB 278-Hall) were introduced relating to the
authorization of iPoker in California. Three of the bills (AB
9, AB 167, and SB 278) were never heard in the respective
Governmental Organization Committee. AB 167 (Jones-Sawyer)
would have permitted all card clubs, tribes, and racetracks to
offer online poker in California. AB 9 (Gatto) did not permit
licensing of racetracks and included a bad actor clause (would
preclude operators that took bets in the U.S. after the passage
of UIGEA in 2006). AB 431 (Gray) declared the intent of the
Legislature to authorize iPoker in California and adopt a legal
AB 2863
Page 23
and regulatory framework. The bill was the first iPoker
proposal to ever be heard and pass a legislative committee
(Assembly G.O. and Appropriations) but was held on the Assembly
Inactive File for further discussion. A summary of the various
iPoker legislative proposals can be found on page 17.
Proponents state that providing a legal mechanism for iPoker
offers an alternative to illegal gambling now being played on
the Internet. Californians can be protected from unscrupulous
gambling enterprises by licensing and regulating iPoker.
Proponents further state, the eventual authorization of iPoker,
will not only allow California to protect its consumers but also
help law enforcement agencies work with the industry in
preventing underage gambling, identity theft and other related
fraud activity.
Proponents state that an iPoker framework in California would
not only generate much needed revenue to the state but would
spur a new industry in California that will provide economic
inducements to California's economy, including jobs. In
addition, under a state system, the state would retain tax
revenues in contrast to a federal system where revenues would be
divided between the state and federal government.
Opponents claim that legal Internet gambling represents the
"Mother of All Expansions," turning every home computer, school
laptop, I-phone, I-pad and most cell phones into a gambling
device, and every home, dorm-room, apartment and Wi-Fi business
into a casino. Concerns center on whether widespread
availability of legal and attractive iGaming system would become
problematic with specific subgroups in the population, such as
young adults. Opponents have raised concerns that the fast
speed of online games and addictive nature of play can
contribute to high player losses and gambling addictions.
California's horse racing industry is the only legal industry in
this state with experience in the realm of offering wagering
over the Internet. Advance Deposit Wagering (ADW) as authorized
by AB 471 (Hertzberg), Chapter 198, Statutes of 2001 is a system
AB 2863
Page 24
whereby a person establishes an account, or multiple accounts at
a CHRB-approved "betting system" or a board-approved
"multi-jurisdictional wagering hub." When a person calls to
place a wager from his or her account, the California law
provides that they are actually providing "wagering
instructions," rather than actually making the wager themselves.
In 20143, the total amount wagered by patrons through
California's licensed ADW providers was more than $600 million.
On-line Poker Revenue Projections for California : Most gaming
experts agree that the market for regulated online poker in
California will be the largest in the United States. The state
would benefit financially in three main ways: taxes paid on
operator revenues and profits, income taxes from player
winnings, and taxes paid by suppliers and employees of gaming
sites. The largest revenue source would be from site operators
who would pay fees based on Gross Gaming Revenues (GGR). GGR
consists of total wagers made by customers less the winnings
paid back to its customers, and a tax rate is applied on the
base.
A forecast by Morgan Stanley stated that given California's
population of 38 million people (vs. NJ's 8 million), "we expect
the market to reach $1.1B by 2017." Morgan Stanley estimates
that the online poker market in California will be approximately
$435 million in Year 1, growing to $1.1 billion by Year 3.
A study published by Academicon and PokerScout in December 2013
stated, if California were to legalize and regulate online
poker, the market could generate revenue between $217 million
and $263 million in its first year of operation and up to $384
million in year ten.
A 2011 study by former California Finance Director Timothy Gage
stated that online poker could generate as much as $1.4 billion
in revenue over the first decade if a bill was passed. This
income would come from direct and indirect taxes tied to the
wagering activity. The study further stated that up to 1,300
new jobs could possibly be created - led by jobs in marketing
AB 2863
Page 25
services, high tech jobs like programmers, and gaming providers.
California's population is larger than every country in Europe
but eight and is viewed by many as possessing the needed online
poker liquidity to maintain the player base that is crucial to
ensure that such a system is successful from a monetary
standpoint.
States that have legalized Internet Gaming : Nevada allows
interactive wagering on poker and sports; Delaware allows
betting on table games, video lottery, and poker; and New Jersey
permits casino games and poker. Currently, New Jersey dominates
the market, with about 90 percent of total U.S. online gaming
revenue. Poker represents about one-third of total online
gaming market in those three states.
Nevada : An Internet gaming bill, AB 466, was enacted in June
2001. It authorized certain commercial casinos to offer
so-called "interactive gaming." Interactive gaming, currently
limited to intrastate Internet poker, went live in April 2013
pursuant to final regulations that were promulgated in December
2011. Nevada prohibits Internet gambling businesses that
knowingly and intentionally took or facilitated unregulated U.S.
bets after December 31, 2006, from obtaining interactive gaming
licensure for five years, after the enactment of AB 466. Nevada
has two web poker operators-a World Series of Poker
(WSOP)-branded online poker site and an online site from South
Point Casino (Real Gaming). Nevada's gross revenue from gaming
is generally subject to a 6.75 percent tax.
At the end of 2014, an online poker site from Station Casinos
(Ultimate Gaming) stopped offering iPoker due to lackluster
revenue. The Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) also stopped
releasing revenue figures, as the state requires at least three
operational sites before such data is released. In 2015, Nevada
and Delaware entered into an interstate poker player sharing
agreement, and following an initial boost to iPoker revenues,
the revenue numbers returned to pre-compact levels.
AB 2863
Page 26
New Jersey : An Internet gaming bill, A2578, was enacted in
February 2013. It authorized commercial casinos to offer
iGaming in the state of New Jersey. Internet gaming, currently
limited to intrastate Internet poker, table games and slots,
went live in November 2013 pursuant to final regulations that
were promulgated in September 2013. New Jersey requires its
online gambling licensees to collaborate with a brick-and-mortar
casino partner. Six commercial casinos are currently operating
Internet gambling websites. Furthermore, each casino has
multiple online gaming websites operating under their license.
The Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) determines license
suitability of a participant. The state does not have specific
language in its Internet gaming statute or regulations that
expressly addresses so-called "bad actors." New Jersey taxes
online gambling revenue at a rate of 15% of gross gaming
revenue.
In 2015, according to the DGE, the online revenue came to $148.8
million, 21% higher than 2014's total. Total online casino
revenue in 2015 was $125 million, up one-third from 2014, while
poker revenue fell 18% to $23.8 million. The state's annual tax
from online gambling was $18.4 million. Overall, online
gambling has risen in popularity since New Jersey introduced
regulation in 2013, and currently it accounts for approximately
8% of the Garden State's overall gambling market.
In December 2013, the DGE suspended their review of a license
application by the former owners of PokerStars, citing legal
concerns about management's outstanding issues with the DOJ. In
2014, Pokerstars, also the owner of Full Tilt, sold their
gambling business to Amaya Gaming Group for $4.9 billion. In
addition, specific executives stepped down as part of the sale
to Amaya. After a lengthy investigation, in September 2015,
Amaya received its approval (Transactional Waiver Order) to
operate PokerStars and Full Tilt in the state. PokerStars began
accepting wagers on March 2016. On April 1, 2016, Amaya's
online gaming license was renewed (Transactional Waiver Order)
by the DGE for another six months. PokerStars NJ operates in
conjunction with its partner, Resorts Casino Hotel in Atlantic
AB 2863
Page 27
City, and offers both poker and casino games online at
PokerStarsNJ.com to players who are physically located in the
state.
In 2016, the Pala Band of Mission Indians, a California tribe
partnered with the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa to supply the
casino with its online gaming platform and to provide both
online poker and casino games to residents of the state. The
tribe was licensed by the DGR in 2014.
Delaware : An Internet gaming bill, HB 333, was enacted in 2012.
It authorized games, such as slots, roulette, poker and
blackjack, which are to be played on each Delaware casino's
websites (horse racetracks with casinos) and controlled
centrally by the Delaware State Lottery.
A single provider powers the state's online casino and poker
offerings (888 and Scientific Games). Total online gaming
revenue (all games) for 2015 was $1.8 million, 14% lower than
the $2.1 million collected in 2014. Poker accounted for
approximately $500,000 of that total revenue figure. When poker
first became legalized online in 2013, monthly revenues
routinely were between $50,000 and $100,000. The market topped
out in December 2013, as poker rake and fees reached $106,922.
Since June 2014, those amounts have not reached the $50,000
threshold. The state's revenue sharing arrangement with the
three casinos authorized to offer online gambling allows it to
keep the first $3.75 million of online revenue, meaning the
casinos did not share in any of the revenue. The state has
experienced low registration rates and the wagering games are
not available on devices such as tablets and smart phones.
States that ban iGaming : Eight states have enacted laws
expressly prohibiting iGaming. Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana,
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington prohibit
Internet Gambling. Additionally, Washington law provides that a
person that transmits or receives gambling information by the
Internet is guilty of a felony.
AB 2863
Page 28
2015 Legislative Action by States : In 2015, seven states
considered but did not enact legislation that would authorize
Internet gambling or amend existing Internet gambling statutes.
Some states, including California and New York, considered
legislation that would authorize Internet poker, only, while
others, including Pennsylvania, considered bills that would
authorize some combination of Internet poker, table games and
slot games. The states were as follows:
California, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania.
In Pennsylvania, HB 649 (Representative Payne) would legalize
and regulate online gaming with licenses going to the state's
existing land-based casinos. The tax rate the state will impose
on online gambling operators remains unresolved at this point,
with the House calling for a 16 percent tax on gross gaming
revenue, while the Senate's bill version would impose a 54
percent tax on GGR. The bill does not contain so-called "bad
actor" language. HB649 is pending on the House floor. It
should be noted that California, New York and Pennsylvania,
account for roughly 22 percent of the U.S. population.
In May 2015, New York State Senator John Bonacic introduced
S5302B that would license online poker in the state. Online
poker companies would be required to partner with an existing
racino or commercial casino. The bill contains a tax rate of 15
percent on online poker operators, who would also have to pay
$10 million for a 10-year license. Up to 10 licenses could be
awarded. The bill does not contain so-called "bad actor"
language. The 2016 Legislature adjourns on June 16.
In March 2015, Morgan Stanley revised its forecast for the
nationwide online betting market at $2.7 billion by 2020, down
from the $5 billion it predicted in late September 2014. The
firm cited several reasons for the reevaluation, from payment
processing and geolocation problems, to a lack of effective
marketing and the continued strength of the offshore market.
AB 2863
Page 29
The firm forecasts the 2017 online market will be $410 million,
down from an initial estimate of $1.3 billion. It predicts 15
states will legalize online gambling by 2020, with legalization
in larger states prompting smaller ones to follow suit.
What about Federal Legislation to Regulate iGaming ? On the
federal level, proposals have been introduced to establish a
federal regulatory system for Internet gaming. Congressional
representative Barney Frank (2010), Senator Harry Reid (2012),
Congressman Peter King (2013), and Congressman Joe Barton (2011
& 2013) introduced bills which would have instituted federal
regulation of a legalized system of Internet gaming. However,
all of the bills stalled in their respective house of origin.
It has been stated that Federal regulation would provide a
single, comprehensive mechanism for consistent licensing,
operation and enforcement of U.S. Internet gambling laws.
2015 Federal Action - The Restoration of America's Wire Act : In
2015, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Senator Lindsey
Graham (R-SC) respectively introduced the Restoration of
America's Wire Act (RAWA) bill in the House and Senate for the
second consecutive year. RAWA would amend provisions of the
federal criminal code, commonly known as the Federal Wire Act of
1961, to provide that the prohibition against transmission of
wagering information shall apply to any bet or wager, or
information assisting in the placing of any bet or wager (thus
making such prohibition applicable to all types of gambling
activities, including Internet gambling. Two Congressional
hearings were held on the contents of RAWA but no further action
was taken.
In Support : San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Morongo Band of
Mission Indians, Commerce Casino, Bicycle Casino, Hawaiian
Gardens Casino, and Amaya Inc./PokerStars writes, "this bill
will protect consumers, create jobs, and strengthen our state's
economy by authorizing and regulating intrastate, Internet Poker
in California. Authorizing online poker will be good for
millions of consumers and poker players who will benefit from a
AB 2863
Page 30
safe, regulated, commercial gaming environment where they are
protected and assured that the games are fair and honest. AB
2863 will establish a vibrant, competitive marketplace, provide
superior consumer protections, require strict oversight and
regulation of licensees and service providers, and ensure that
the state receives a reasonable return. We also appreciate the
author's inclusive, transparent approach for getting all parties
to dialogue. We are confident the few remaining issues can be
resolved and an agreement can be reached to finalize AB 2863 as
it moves through the legislative process. Every year that
California fails to act not only puts consumers at risk while
playing online games from unregulated offshore localities that
provide few protections, but our state also loses out on
collecting hundreds of millions of dollars that can be used for
essential programs like public schools, public safety,
healthcare and social services."
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) writes, "SEIU
represents over 700,000 workers statewide, including pari-mutuel
clerks at California's Thoroughbred Racing facilities. We have
been a part of the discussions regarding Internet Poker
legislation and look forward to passing legislation this year
that will bring additional revenue and jobs to our state. We
would also like to make a few comments on the direction and
intent of the bill. First, the $60 million payment in AB 2863
for the horse racing industry is a much-needed boost to the
industry. We hope to work with you as the bill moves forward to
ensure that the industry and its workers benefit from this
revenue source."
The Thoroughbred Owners of California, Del Mar Thoroughbred
Club, California Thoroughbred Breeders Association, The Jockeys
Guild, California Authority of Racing Fairs, California
Teamsters Public Affairs Council, California Thoroughbred
Trainers, Los Alamitos Racing Association, SEIU California
writes, on behalf of the California horse racing and
breeding industries, writes in support of AB 2863. "More
specifically, we write on behalf of the racetracks, fairs,
jockeys, pari-mutuel clerks and thousands of California horse
AB 2863
Page 31
owners and trainers who have invested hundreds of millions of
dollars into our state's economy to support the $2.5 billion
horse agribusiness. The Thoroughbred industry in California
employs more than 50,000 people. Racing, breeding and training
occurs in 28 counties within in California and attracts fans,
breeders and owners from around the world. In 2001, the
California Legislature granted exclusive authority to the horse
racing industry to offer wagering on the Internet via advanced
deposit wagering or ADW. This power was authorized following
the passage of Tribal Gaming under Proposition 1A, which
directly resulted in a 40% decline in racing industry revenues.
Over the past 15 years, California Horseracing has completely
restructured its business model to embrace the new ADW
technologies and online wagering exclusivity afforded us by the
Legislature. This year we project over $600 million in ADW
wagering or more than 40% percent of total pari-mutuel wagering
in the State. The ADW wagering has helped partially offset the
tremendous disadvantage that the California industry currently
faces as the only major racing state in which horse racing does
not participate in any form of alternate gaming revenues
(i.e., sharing in percentage of slot machines, casino games or
having the right to offer such
games as is the case in other major racing states like New York,
Florida, and Maryland). For comparison, in 2014 the horse
racing industry in New York received over $238 million from
state casino interests to support the racing agribusiness in
that state. This financial imbalance with other racing states
continues to threaten the viability of horse racing in
California, tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in
agricultural investment. With our industry's increasing
reliance on Internet wagering and the lack of other gaming
revenue support, we are obligated to take a hard look at any new
form of online gambling in California." To
protect against any misunderstandings or false precedents that
could impact such other legislation, we would ask for clarifying
language in AB 2863 to the effect that: The
Chapter authorizes Internet poker only and nothing in this
chapter shall preclude a horseracing association from
participating in future Internet gambling activities that do not
AB 2863
Page 32
include Internet
poker.
The Pokers Players Alliance writes, California has a long
tradition with the game of poker and card rooms. This bill
charts the course towards responsible regulation of iPoker and
puts California at the leading edge of this burgeoning industry.
AB 2863 will corral the current unregulated marketplace and
turn it into a system that is safe for consumers and accountable
to regulators. This bill mandates technologies to protect
consumers from fraud, eliminates underage access and mitigates
compulsive gambling behaviors. These regulatory safeguards are
not theoretical. They are reality. Today three states -
Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey - have authorized and are
regulating Internet poker. In these states, the regulated
operators are accountable to the players, regulators, and law
enforcement and they are continually reviewed to ensure they are
meeting, and exceeding, the prescribed technical safeguards.
In Opposition : The Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling (CSIG)
writes in opposition, "CSIG is opposed to this legislation
because if approved it would hurt California families and the
California economy." Internet Poker is an assault on
California's children and families. Legalization of Internet
Poker will place a casino in every person's living room, mobile
device, or tablet-24 hours per day, 7 days per week and
represent the largest gambling expansion in California's
history. Internet Poker is riddled with false promises that
stifle economic development. California should not be led down
this path by offshore gaming operators with questionable legal
histories whose only intention will be to drive our state's
consumers away from California facilities and into their servers
and databases. Legalized Internet gaming has been a fiscal
loser for the states who have legalized it and the financial
promises made by proponents never been met. The risks far
outweigh the rewards. There is no compelling policy reason to
approve Internet Poker, the public is demonstrably opposed, and
it puts kids at risk and provides safe harbor for illicit money
laundering."
AB 2863
Page 33
Related legislation : AB 1437 (Gray) of the 2015/2016 Session.
Would enact the Internet Fantasy Sports Games Consumer
Protection Act, which would require a person or entity to apply
for, and receive, a license from the DOJ prior to offering an
Internet fantasy sports game for play in California. (Pending
in Senate Rules Committee)
Prior legislation : AB 431 (Gray) of 2015. Would declare the
intent of the Legislature to authorize Internet poker in
California and adopt a legal and regulatory framework that
complies with federal law. The bill declares the framework
shall include strict standards to ensure the fairness and
integrity of the games, appropriate consumer protections, fair
revenue for the state, safeguards against underage play, and
mechanisms to address negative impacts of Internet poker
gambling. (Held on the Assembly Floor)
AB 9 (Gatto) of 2015. This bill, which would be known as the
Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act of 2015, would have
established a framework to authorize intrastate Internet poker,
as specified. The bill did not permit licensing of horse racing
entities and excluded any company that accepted bets after
December 31, 2006 in the U.S. without proper licensing, as
specified. (Never Heard in Assembly G.O. Committee)
AB 167 (Jones-Sawyer) of 2015. This bill, which would be known
as the Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act of 2015, would
have permitted card clubs, tribes, and racetracks to offer
intrastate online poker in California, as specified. (Never
Heard in Assembly G.O. Committee)
SB 278 (Hall) of 2015. Would have authorized the operation of
an Internet poker web site within the borders of the state. The
AB 2863
Page 34
bill required CGCC, in consultation with DOJ, to promulgate
regulations for intrastate Internet poker. The regulations
would include, but not be limited to, a licensing process for an
individual or entity to become an operator of an Internet poker
Web site and rules for the operation of an Internet poker Web
site. (Never Heard in Senate G.O. Committee)
AB 2291 (Jones-Sawyer) of 2013/2014 Session. Would have
authorized intrastate Internet poker, as specified. (Never
heard in Committee on Assembly G.O.)
SB 1366 (Correa) of 2013/2014 Session. Would have authorized
intrastate Internet poker, as specified. The bill would
authorize eligible entities to apply for a license to operate an
intrastate Internet poker Web site offering the play of
authorized games to players within California, as specified.
(Never heard in Committee on Senate G.O.)
SB 51 (Wright) of 2013/2014 Session. Would have authorized
intrastate Internet gambling, as specified. Would have
authorized eligible entities to apply to CGCC for a 10-year
license to operate an intrastate Internet gambling Web site
offering the play of authorized gambling games to registered
players within California. (Never heard in Committee on Senate
G.O.)
SB 678 (Correa) of 2013/2014 Session. Would have authorized
intrastate Internet poker, as specified. The bill would have
authorize eligible entities to apply for a license to operate an
intrastate Internet poker Web site offering the play of
authorized games to players within California, as specified.
(Never heard in Committee on Senate G.O.)
SB 1463 (Wright) of 2011-12 Session. Would have enacted the
"Internet Gambling Consumer Protection and Public-Private
Partnership Act of 2012" for the stated purpose of authorizing,
intrastate Internet gambling. (Never heard in Committee on
AB 2863
Page 35
Senate G.O.)
SB 40 (Correa) of 2011-12 Session. Would have authorized
intrastate Internet poker, as specified. The bill required the
CGCC to adopt emergency regulations, in consultation with the
department, providing for the issuance of licenses to operate
intrastate Internet poker Web sites.
SB 45 (Wright) of 2011-12 Session. Would have established a
framework to authorize intrastate
Internet gambling, as specified. The bill would have required
the Bureau to issue a request for proposals to enter into
contracts with up to 3 hub operators, as defined, to provide
lawful Internet
gambling games to registered players in California for a period
of 20 years, as specified. (Never heard in Committee on Senate
G.O.)
SB 1485 (Wright) of 2009-10 Session. Would have enacted the
"Internet Gambling Consumer Protection and Public-Private
Partnership Act of 2010" for the stated purpose of authorizing,
intrastate Internet gambling. (Never heard in Committee on
Senate G.O.)
AB 2026 (Levine) of 2007-08 Session. Would have authorized the
intrastate play of various Internet poker games to be offered by
licensed gambling establishments registered with CGCC.
(Never heard in Committee on Senate G.O.)
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Bicycle Casino
California Authority of Racing Fairs
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
California Thoroughbred Breeders Association
California Thoroughbred Trainers
Commerce Casino
AB 2863
Page 36
Del Mar Thoroughbred Club
Hawaiian Gardens Casino
Jockeys Guild
Lake Elsinore Casino
Los Alamitos Racing Association
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Napa Valley Casino
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Poker Players Alliance
Amaya Inc./PokerStars
Rincon Band of Luiseņo Indians
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
SEIU California
Stones Gambling Hall
Thoroughbred Owners of California
United Auburn Indian Community
Opposition
Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling
Analysis Prepared by:Eric Johnson / G.O. / (916) 319-2531