CalvinAyre.com: Nevada to require "Marketing Affiliates" to be licensed, pay $3K fee

[The Buzz]

Very interesting story on CalvinAyre.com this morning. According to the story, online poker affiliates who want to promote sites that are regulated by the Nevada may be required to be fingerprinted and pay a $3,000 licensing fee.

Under Nevada’s guidelines, marketing affiliates would require Class 3 licenses, which would mean filling out personal histories and financial questionnaires, as well as detailing one’s business agreements with online poker providers and, yes, the fingerprinting demanded of those seeking to actually deal the online poker cards and process the payments. Applicants will also have to ante up $3k for the privilege of being poked and prodded by regulators.

Full story here: http://calvinayre.com/2012/07/24/bus...need-licenses/

What do you think? Would you apply for a license under those conditions? Would you pay a $3,000 licensing fee?

[baldidiot]

Sod that for a laugh.

If this really happens, then I see a lot of people switching more to traditional advertising (ie: non-affiliate) CPM or tenancy models.

Unless umbrella corporations can get licensed and step in as middle-middle men (eg: PAS).

[GamTrak]

Personally, I'm in favor of the fee due to the amount of folks not really serious about affiliate marketing, but choose to be spammers and ruin the industry. I know it's a hefty fee and I'm not happy about paying it, but that's part of having a business.

I thought fingerprinting was for dealers and folks dealing with the money. Either way, I'll get fingerprinted...no problem.

[lots0]

I don't have a problem with the fee or the background check.. as long as the background check does not apply to employees or contractors.
Land based casinos in NV are required to do this for all employees and contractors.

However, My understanding is that this regulation of online casino 'Service providers' is just the first step to eliminating all Revenue Sharing or CPA affiliates from all online casinos licensed in NV.

Most all of the online casinos I know of that have applied to the Nevada Regulators have put froward proposed regulations to eliminate anyone but casino employees from advertising or funneling players to the casino. (Nevada allows the applicant casino to provide an outline of regulations they would like to see implemented)

I hope that the state regulators will keep the option open for independent affiliates, but I really don't see that happening. At this point it looks to me like the momentum to eliminate affiliates from online casinos licensed out of NV(as we know them) is unstoppable.

[TheGooner]

To be honest it all sounds a bit Michael Mouse - with physical details being required for potentially international affiliates.
No I won't be travelling to Nevada to be fingerprinted by the commission.

It would be simpler for us to accept a straight monthly advertising deal with these properties instead - and wait to see how it all shakes out.
Or are Nevada planning to DNA test advertising agencies next as well ?

[lots0]

I don't believe that the Nevada Gaming Commission will license non-residents of Nevada. In other words you have to Live in Nevada... Not just go there to get finger printed.

These requirements have not changed because of them licensing online casinos.

here is copy of the application form.. it is very specific about the person being a legal resident of Nevada.

http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdoc...ocumentid=2483
(it's a Word Doc.)

[the_soc]

The relatively high cost of the license makes me cringe but I think it's a very clever move a and good for all parties involved: the state collects income tax (good for the public), the gambling public can rely on using websites run by a 'legimitate' business (and put an end to shady dealings between affiliates and casinos) - and the affiliate himself/herself has a clean conscience that he's no longer working in the 'gray'. He's paying taxes, he's registered, he's legitimate.

...just a shame about the $3000 - how many *years* of commissions will that take to pay? and is the license fee annual(!!?)

[EugeneK]

What if 3 more states legitimate online poker? Should we pay for each state license? And to each state to fingerprint?
I think it's very-very stupid. Some of these big crocodiles don't understand the essence of online gambling

[TheGooner]

The relatively high cost of the license makes me cringe but I think it's a very clever move a and good for all parties involved: the state collects income tax (good for the public), the gambling public can rely on using websites run by a 'legimitate' business (and put an end to shady dealings between affiliates and casinos) - and the affiliate himself/herself has a clean conscience that he's no longer working in the 'gray'. He's paying taxes, he's registered, he's legitimate.

I think that you'll find that this is already true for most full-time affiliates ... professional, running private companies and paying taxes.

It didn't need a 3K wallet grab from the state of Nevada to make that happen ...

[lots0]

I don't think a lot of non-us affiliates are going to like the face of regulation in the US.

I just spoke to the person in charge of licensing for the Nevada Gaming Control Board.
According to him... No one will even be considered for affiliate Licensing, unless they can prove they are a legal resident of Nevada.
*** Also anyone that has any history at all of being involved in the past with 'illegal' online gambling we NOT be considered for licensing by Nevada.***
According to the NGCB illegal online gambling = ANY ONLINE GAMBLING... that was not specifically licensed by the state of Nevada... So most all of us are already cut out.

To become a 'legal' resident of Nevada, you must live there for at least four months and establish a permanent residence in Nevada BEFORE you apply for affiliate Licensing... Then you MUST maintain a permanent residence in Nevada all the time you are licensed.

It's not JUST the $3K, a year licensing fees and a very very extensive background check... you have to live in Nevada... have a residence there and be a Legal Resident of the State Of Nevada... Before they will even consider your application to be an Affiliate for the licensed online casinos ran out of Nevada.

Want to verify this information yourself.... Here is the Nevada Gaming Control Board's Licensing dept email addy.
gcbresch@gcb.nv.gov


Bottom line... Outsiders(people that do not live in Nevada) and those folks that have been involved in any way with any online casino that ever took US players are not going to be allowed in the Nevada Market.

[GamTrak]

Well, looks like we may be selling the house and moving to Nevada! It's just as nice as Colorado and the best party town in the US. Thanks for the info. Lotso!

[FictionNet]

According to the story, online poker affiliates who want to promote sites that are regulated by the Nevada may be required to be fingerprinted and pay a $3,000 licensing fee.

Will a semen sample do?

[lots0]

To be honest it all sounds a bit Michael Mouse - with physical details being required for potentially international affiliates.
No I won't be travelling to Nevada to be fingerprinted by the commission.

It would be simpler for us to accept a straight monthly advertising deal with these properties instead - and wait to see how it all shakes out.
Or are Nevada planning to DNA test advertising agencies next as well ?

Sorry, No advertising agency's allowed or outside adverting allowed, only the casino can advertise for it's self.
Advertising is tightly controlled/regulated as well...

They closed all the holes...

Regulation = Protectionism

[TheGooner]

Really?

No Sir - that wasn't advertising - that was an editorial.

[lots0]

here is a copy of the complete Nevada
"INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANTS FOR LICENSURE AS A SERVICE PROVIDER"

Poker/Casino Affiliates in Nevada will now be called 'Interactive Service Providers'.

It is a 5 page pdf.

http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdoc...ocumentid=6217


Looks like Marketing affiliates will be required to get a class 3 license.

The reason Advertising requires no license is because advertising is restricted to the casino only - no third party advertisements allowed.
Of course you can 'editorialize' all you want about the Vegas online casinos... you just won't get paid for it.

After you read all this do you still think regulation in the US is a good thing..... lol

[rak]

To be honest it all sounds a bit Michael Mouse - with physical details being required for potentially international affiliates.
No I won't be travelling to Nevada to be fingerprinted by the commission.

It would be simpler for us to accept a straight monthly advertising deal with these properties instead - and wait to see how it all shakes out.
Or are Nevada planning to DNA test advertising agencies next as well ?

Wouldn't it suck if legislation went the way of "we now regulate online casinos which take US players" .. now lets regulate the people whole are going send those players.

Are they concerned that money might be going to some criminal organisation?

I dont think even real world junket operators have to go through all that.

[mojo]

None of this is surprising to me. I already put in motion other sources of income beside gambling affiliation.

Because of the dark side of this biz, rogue casinos and affiliates, there wil be incredible hoops and rightly so. I do think it's good for the player and I feel it's great to have safe casinos for us, but Americans will still resent not being able to play their favorite Micro casino, or whatever is excluded for us. I think there is a lot to consider from a PR standpoint.

I don't have a problem with a background check. The worst they would find on me is an expired auto inspection sticker. I pay taxes on my affiliate earnings which is easily checked. I wouldn't move to Nev though. It wouldn't bother me at all if I can't affy Nev casinos. I feel pretty confident that Nev will get the lions share anyway. What are the other states going to do? That is key for me. If any want to reach their full potential they need affiliates.

There may be a case for fighting a rule that says existing affiliates are excluded because they consider it illegal. It has never been proven illegal. Is that constitutional? Some of us are pre UIGEA and should be grandfathered etc etc. All of this is unchallenged.

Affiliates still have some clout and can publish educational articles about how things really work. Some of us have been around awhile and are trusted by players already so I feel players will be researching what we say. Many of the people that do not gamble don't care, but they do care if it becomes Big Brother-ish. The rules can be whatever they want but that doesn't mean it will be successful. JMO of course.

I may be way off the mark. As always, we'll see.

[boczom1]

does this mean that affiliates that pay the fee, could seamlessly switch over from promoting offshore sites....to u.s. regulated sites ?

does this also mean the feds will 'look the other way' regarding who or which sites that affiliate has promoted in the past ?

I'm guessing if they pay the fee, it's considered no questions asked.. (under the table type stuff)

hmm..

[mojo]

does this mean that affiliates that pay the fee, could seamlessly switch over from promoting offshore sites....to u.s. regulated sites ?

does this also mean the feds will 'look the other way' regarding who or which sites that affiliate has promoted in the past ?

I'm guessing if they pay the fee, it's considered no questions asked.. (under the table type stuff)

hmm..

Yeah, no. lol. Really good point boczor! Nevada would never let affy's promote them on the same site where say - RTG - or any other software that allows US. They would consider it the same as existing affy programs that we have now do not allow porn.

They would probably prefer porn LOL. There is lots of porn in Nevada. I know it's a stretch to compare that to porn but that's the only thing I can think of. No offense to RTG. There will be no way Nevada will allow advertising along side unapproved software IMO.

I do not agree that if you pay the 3k fee, or whatever it is, you would be exempt from this. That is really peanuts. The fee would not be a factor.

Point taken though. How do we resolve affy's who heavily promoted US casinos. Are affy's prepared for such an extreme change or will they not. Will they have the option? Such a dilemma.

[lots0]

does this mean that affiliates that pay the fee, could seamlessly switch over from promoting offshore sites....to u.s. regulated sites ?

NO... Nevada is very specific about this.. No One that has been involved in 'illegal' online gambling(Illegal per the Nevada Gaming Control Board - Not the Federal Government) and According to Nevada... ALL online gambling was illegal unless it is licensed out of Nevada...

$2500 of the 3k licenseing fee is for a complete background check... much more complete than a FBI background check... any past association with criminal activity(online casinos) will exclude you from getting the license. I was even told that too many traffic tickets will stop you from getting the license... When I asked how many traffic tickets it would take to exclude a person... I was told... and I quote, "How ever many we want."

...does this also mean the feds will 'look the other way' regarding who or which sites that affiliate has promoted in the past ?

Not gonna happen. Remember this is Nevada, not the Federal government.
The Nevada Gaming Control Board is much much tougher than the federal government.. These are the guys that drove organized crime out of Las Vegas and took over... I think bribes are going to be out of the question.

I been telling people this for a very long time. Regulation in the US was going to be about protecting the land based casinos profits and cutting out the affiliates...

When land based casino owners like Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn(who both strongly oppose online gambling) can give local politicians tens of millions of dollars and receive pledges from the elected ass holes to give the land based casinos big advantages over their online competition... the little fish like us are gonna get cooked for lunch.