Lawmakers Enter Pennsylvania Debate Over Multiple Skins
There was never an intent to limit the number of skins, says House representatives
The debate around whether Pennsylvania‘s new online gambling regulations should limit the number of brands (or skins) per operator entered a new phase this week when House Representatives Rosita Youngblood and Jason Ortitay corresponded with the regulator to advise that the intent of the legalisation legislation was never to limit the number of brands an operator may decide to launch.
“I urge you to consider the notion that limiting skins would decrease competition and protect only the brands of a few interests. Instead, we should look to increase competition, increase tax revenue and improve the quality of interactive gaming products in Pennsylvania, while at the same time improving customer experience by allowing for multiple skins per license,” the duo wrote.
“The Board should not limit the numbers of skins, nor place conditions on how access to the skins occurs. This will increase revenue for the Commonwealth at a pivotal time, instead of limiting competition or placing an undue burden on how a patron obtains access to a skin.”
The letter presents an opposing view to lobbying attempts by land gambling operators Parx and Hollywood Penn National who have been campaigning for the draft legislation to confine each licensed operator to a single skin.
It also warns that in addition to limiting state revenue, a skins restriction would be contrary to the empowering legislation and a “constitutional usurpation” of the state legislature.
Parx and Hollywood Penn International also face opposition from experienced New Jersey online operators who may have an eye on the new Pennsylvania market.
They too have argued for multiple skins per operator via a lobbying contractor, arguing that restricting the number of skins will have negative consequences for the new Pennsylvania industry and noting that in their experience multiple skins grow the market and maximise revenue.
They contend further that skin restrictions are anti-competitive and will result in an inferior product and user experience, whereas multiple skins increase competitive levels and encourage innovation.
The current draft legislation concerning the multiple skin issue has yet to be released, so the lobbying is likely to continue at least until early April, when the next set of draft regulations is unveiled by the Pennsylvania Gambling Control Board.
Details On Draft Pennsylvania Regulations Emerge
Two sets of draft regulations have so far been released
The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board has released two sets of draft regulations as it continues to work on the licensing and regulatory infrastructure for online gambling in the state.
Both concern online casino and poker, and a third set is due for release on April 2. This third set is expected to deal among other facets with the question of multiple skins per operator (see story earlier in this bulletin)
The proposals thus far make provision for:
* The approval of the PGCB is required regarding server location, but such equipment “may be located in a restricted area on the premises of the licensed facility.” Importantly, such equipment may also be located in the same county or even elsewhere in the US, provided it meets PGCB minimum requirements. This rather wide location regulation would probably suit New Jersey operators seeking Pennsylvanian licensing.
* There are detailed requirements to ensure that equipment is protected from natural or man-made disasters, and security requirements are strict and comprehensive, detailing which personnel may have access to servers and associated details such as logging.
* Operators are required to have a full disaster and emergency recovery plan in place and ready for deployment at a moment’s notice.
* Operators must provide efficient self-exclusion facilities for players and ensure they are adequately published.
* Certified and efficient geo-location protocols must be deployed at all times to ensure that only players within the state can access Pennsylvania licensed online sites.
* Operators must provide players with access to a “replay last game feature” that allows players to see previous outcomes.
* Pay tables and game rules for all online slots and games must be provided to all registered players, even those who have not yet made a deposit. Transparency and accuracy are key requirements in presenting such information.
* During play, players must be provided with information on the name of the game, current balance, all play restrictions, and amounts won and lost in the session
Players, once inside a game, must to be provided with minimum amounts of information, including the name of the game being played, the player’s current balance, any restrictions in place, and the amount won and lost in a session.
* Random number generators must meet PGCB standards for determining game outcomes and be tested by an acceptable testing agency.
* Changes to any game must be approved and comply with regulations.
* Operators have a duty to provide “comprehensive house rules governing wagering transactions” to players.
* Advertising must meet minimum standards. Advertisements cannot target excluded players or consist of offensive, illegal, irresponsible or inappropriate material.
* Promotions run by operators must go through a vetting process.
* Operators who wish to offer live dealer action must request PGCB approval.
Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board To Start Accepting Online Gambling Licence Application On June 4
Important indicator on the question of how many online brands an operator may be permitted to launch?
Industry observers in the fast-developing Pennsylvanian introduction of legal and licensed online gambling are speculating this week that the issue of how many “skins” or brands an operator will be permitted to offer may soon be clarified following the Board’s announcement that it will commence accepting licensing application on June 4 this year.
The optimistic analysts say that it is unlikely that the Board will expect applicants to hand over substantial licensing fees without knowing the answer to this important question, which remains ambiguous, although a new tranche of the regulations is expected soon.
InfoPowa readers may recall that at least two land casino operators in Pennsylvania have been lobbying the Board to ensure that licensees are confined to just one online brand per licence.
Arguing against this are other potential licensees who have urged the Board to follow the example of New Jersey and permit operators to launch multiple skins. This has proved to be a success in New Jersey, encouraging more online-land partnerships and a healthier sector.
Earlier this week (see previous InfoPowa report) two of the lawmakers who pushed the legalising legislation through the state Legislature advised the Board that it was never the intention to limit licensees to a single skin, and urged the Board to note the positive experiences in other states where multiple skins per licensee is permitted.
The next scheduled meeting of the board is due April 4, and the industry is hoping that clarity on the issue will emerge.