Written by :
Published on :
One of the bigger gaming conferences of the year, the Next.io NYC event, kicked off Tuesday. The conference is completely sold out.
Somehow this event is now being called the Social Casino Summit.
It's described here on the Next.io website:
"The popularity of Social Casino lies in its unique blend of entertainment and the thrill of traditional casino-style gameplay, offering an engaging experience for a diverse audience, available without the need to risk actual money.
"This half-day Social Casino Summit unites key stakeholders—social casino innovators and traditional gambling operators—for an in-depth exploration of the opportunities and challenges within this dynamic sector.
"Industry experts will discuss essential topics, including navigating regulatory landscapes, mitigating potential risks, and discovering innovative strategies to how to create a more sustainable long-term landscape."
Victor Rocha, Pechanga Band of Indians. Editor of Pechanga.net. Conference Chair of the Indian Gaming Association. President of Victor-Strategies, also was left wondering how this event became so sweeps-focused.
"Let's talk about the cowards at http://Next.io. They should call the Social Casino Summit 2025 what it really is - a low rent sweepstakes conference. https://next.io/summits/socialcasino/ I find it humorous that they don't mention sweepstakes until you get to the sessions."
Let's talk about the cowards at https://t.co/UJOmSxXaqE. They should call the Social Casino Summit 2025 what it really is - a low rent sweepstakes conference. https://t.co/gr6xdXFv97 I find it humorous that they don't mention sweepstakes until you get to the sessions.
— Victor Rocha (@VictorRocha1) March 11, 2025
Interestingly, Chumba Casino, one of the largest sweepstakes casinos, just pulled out of the California market, although some on Reddit are now saying it's something caching in people's smartphones (that's a lot of caching).
Late last month, gaming attorney Daniel Wallach explained the unique exposure for sweepstakes casinos in the Golden State.
"California or Florida, you may be completely out of luck since there is case law in those states (see here and here) which bars private civil lawsuits to recover gambling losses — even where a plaintiff is an unknowing participant in illegal gambling. This leaves many aggrieved consumers without any meaningful recourse.
"A more effective and efficient way to combat the proliferation of online sweepstakes casinos is through the vast civil enforcement powers of state attorneys general, who are typically authorized under state law to seek wide-ranging remedies such as injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of profits, sequestration of assets, dissolution of the business, and civil penalties to address fraudulent or illegal activity — all without being burdened by arbitration clauses or issues of standing that can doom private civil lawsuits. Importantly, state attorneys general can also pursue second-tier actors — such as banks and payment processors — which materially assist and/or aid and abet illegal gambling operations.
"For example, in California, Sections 1703, 1704, and 1706 of the Business & Professions Code (commonly referred to as the “Unfair Competition Law”) authorize the Attorney General and other law enforcement officials (such as a district attorney, county attorney, or city attorney under specified circumstances) to sue in the name of the People of the State of California for injunctive relief, restitution, and mandatory civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation to address unlawful business practices such as violations of the state’s anti-gambling laws.
"The California Attorney General’s Office has used this civil enforcement mechanism on numerous occasions to combat illegal sweepstakes gambling, with one recent case culminating in a multi-million dollar judgment and an injunction against a Canadian-based software supplier which provided slot machine-style gambling games to Internet sweepstakes cafés throughout California. (Also included in the stipulated final judgment were two Florida corporations, a Nevada limited liability company, and the principals of all three entities — all of whom were sued by the California AG under a state-law aiding and abetting theory)."
|
