Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NJ Online Gambling Measure Clears Assembly Panel
Legislation to allow online gambling in New Jersey continues to make progress, despite concerns over its constitutionality.
The Assembly Regulatory Oversight and Gaming Committee passed A-2578 in a 3-1 vote on May 10, a month after it won a Senate committee's approval. (See the Bill at http://bit.ly/Juc7M5.)
The measure would allow casinos to accept wagers via the Internet from gamblers in the state, though an amendment contemplates allowing out-of-state bets if authorities determine it would be legal.
The bill provides that computers, servers and hubs be physically located in licensed casino/hotels and be monitored and regulated by the Division of Gaming Enforcement.
The division would continuously monitor casino equipment for the capability to verify a bettor's physical location within state boundaries.
The committee's amendments, including the provisions for out-of-state bets, provide for a 20% tax on gross online gambling revenues, twice the 10% tax rate contemplated in the Senate version of the bill, S-1565 (http://bit.ly/JucPcg).
The committee also removed a horseracing subsidy that Gov. Chris Christie objected to in vetoing prior online gambling legislation.
Despite general support for the legislation, several lawmakers on voiced concerns that such a change would amount to gambling expansion beyond Atlantic City's municipal boundaries, thus requiring a voter-approved constitutional amendment.
The legislation's proponents have maintained that, so long as the servers and other equipment are located within the city, any online bet would be considered placed in Atlantic City.
Assemblyman Ralph Caputo D-Essex) cast the lone “no” vote, saying he does not oppose the bill in principle but believes the question should be answered in a referendum, citing legal opinions from the Office of Legislative Services and elsewhere that online gambling would require a constitutional amendment.
Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester), the sponsor of A-2578 and a committee member, said he would support racetrack gambling parlors “if there's a way to strike a concession” with Christie.
Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), the sponsor of S-1565 and prior iterations of the bill, told the committee that passage of the legislation could lead to suits challenging the law's constitutionality.
Lesniak added that passage would put the state in the forefront of legal online gambling, and allow other states unable to make the investment in infrastructure to partner with New Jersey, generating further revenue.
Christie vetoed an online gambling bill last year, saying a referendum would be required.
During a late May visit to Atlantic City to promote tourism there, Christie said he would try to get sports betting in the city before the fall, readying legislation after NJ voters passed a referendum last November.
David Gialanella is a Reproter for the New Jersey Law Journal, an ALM affiliate of Internet Law & Strategy.
Legislation to allow online gambling in New Jersey continues to make progress, despite concerns over its constitutionality.
The Assembly Regulatory Oversight and Gaming Committee passed A-2578 in a 3-1 vote on May 10, a month after it won a Senate committee's approval. (See the Bill at http://bit.ly/Juc7M5.)
The measure would allow casinos to accept wagers via the Internet from gamblers in the state, though an amendment contemplates allowing out-of-state bets if authorities determine it would be legal.
The bill provides that computers, servers and hubs be physically located in licensed casino/hotels and be monitored and regulated by the Division of Gaming Enforcement.
The division would continuously monitor casino equipment for the capability to verify a bettor's physical location within state boundaries.
The committee's amendments, including the provisions for out-of-state bets, provide for a 20% tax on gross online gambling revenues, twice the 10% tax rate contemplated in the Senate version of the bill, S-1565 (http://bit.ly/JucPcg).
The committee also removed a horseracing subsidy that Gov. Chris Christie objected to in vetoing prior online gambling legislation.
Despite general support for the legislation, several lawmakers on voiced concerns that such a change would amount to gambling expansion beyond Atlantic City's municipal boundaries, thus requiring a voter-approved constitutional amendment.
The legislation's proponents have maintained that, so long as the servers and other equipment are located within the city, any online bet would be considered placed in Atlantic City.
Assemblyman Ralph Caputo D-Essex) cast the lone “no” vote, saying he does not oppose the bill in principle but believes the question should be answered in a referendum, citing legal opinions from the Office of Legislative Services and elsewhere that online gambling would require a constitutional amendment.
Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester), the sponsor of A-2578 and a committee member, said he would support racetrack gambling parlors “if there's a way to strike a concession” with Christie.
Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), the sponsor of S-1565 and prior iterations of the bill, told the committee that passage of the legislation could lead to suits challenging the law's constitutionality.
Lesniak added that passage would put the state in the forefront of legal online gambling, and allow other states unable to make the investment in infrastructure to partner with New Jersey, generating further revenue.
Christie vetoed an online gambling bill last year, saying a referendum would be required.
During a late May visit to Atlantic City to promote tourism there, Christie said he would try to get sports betting in the city before the fall, readying legislation after NJ voters passed a referendum last November.
David Gialanella is a Reproter for the New Jersey Law Journal, an ALM affiliate of Internet Law & Strategy.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.