Would you consider being a licensed New Jersey affiliate?

[MichaelCorfman]

Last week at the iGaming Congress held at the Global Gaming expo there was a panel session on "Bad Actors." One of the panel participants was George Rover, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law and Public Safety, New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement.

Not surprisingly, George made it clear that New Jersey considered affiliates that promote sites that are unlicensed in New Jersey to residents of New Jersey to be Bad Actors. And that Bad Actors will not be authorized by the state to promote online gaming sites licensed by the state. In addition to wanting to prevent promotion of unlicensed gaming sites in the state, they don't want unlicensed sites to be promoted alongside licensed gaming sites.

But the definition of a Bad Actor extends far beyond that, and covers activities in other states as well. So, for example, if an affiliate promotes an unlicensed site to residents of a different state, that is also grounds for the affiliate to be considered a Bad Actor by the state according to George Rover. The bottom line is that for an affiliate to promote a licensed online gaming site in New Jersey, they cannot engage in the promotion of any unlicensed gaming site anywhere within the United States. Or perhaps more accurately, they would have to hide such promotion, and I would guess that would be criminal under New Jersey state law.

That makes the decision to promote licensed online gaming sites in New Jersey much harder than would otherwise be the case. It is not enough to also stop promoting unlicensed sites in New Jersey - it has to be stopped in all 49 other states and the District of Columbia to be legitimate.

What do you make of this situation? Would you consider promoting New Jersey licensed casinos given the current requirements? How many states would need to have licensed sites for you to consider becoming a licensed affiliate? Remember, you can't promote any of the licensed casinos without also being a licensed affiliate.

Michael

[Christiaan]

I'm happy that I'm not active in the United States. This is very hard for affiliates.

If I was in the United States I don't think I would do it. But it will probably also depend on the number of visitors you get from the licensed states. An affiliate who has more than 50% visitors from licensed states will be much more likely to become licensed.
But you won't have as much competition in the licensed states as most affiliates don't have a license.

For the moment I'm happy I live in Europe and only have European websites. I hope that the European Union doesn't get crazy ideas like this.

[-Shay-]

The US market is a train wreck. Not willing to touch it in unregulated markets and its not organized enough to dedicate time/resources to the regulated market. I'm not sure I would consider it based on number of states - but instead on the quality of states, the compensation level, and how much fire is set upon the hoops one has to jump through.

[Sherlock]

Thanks Michael for the info. I have already covered my thoughts here: https://www.gpwa.org/forum/affiliate...et-219634.html

This "Bad Actor" nonsense is something that makes me absolutely sure they do not know how internet works. For example nobody can strictly define a website. I will omit the fact that it is beyond comprehesion to force the bad actor policy.

Let's imagine situation that some website is actually promoting his own affiliates and sells some ad spaces, which is exactly what I am doing. Now imagine that those spaces will be filled with some unlicences operator or anything that THEY do not like and your effort is at risk. I can imagine my competitor buys that ad space, makes evidence and reports me.

I was thinking before that maybe I might ever try to promote the licenced gambling in the US. Now, reading this funny stuff, I will just sit and watch.

[Sherlock]

I am curious when the first affiliate site will be seized and the well known sign will appear there instead of content. Probably it is about time for US affiliates to think about .eu, .me and other generic domain alternatives (outside of US jurisdiction, where is any .com, .net, .org, .biz, .info but also .tv and .cc and even .co).

[muffincrumbs]

I am already licensed and have yet to start promoting or sending traffic in anyway. When I complete a site for it then I may go ahead. I just feel like the competition is way to fierce with their brand names appearing everywhere, ginormous networks of sites, and the player base too small to make me really motivated. I would not mix offshore with the legal casinos though. It would be asking for trouble.

[MichaelCorfman]

This "Bad Actor" nonsense is something that makes me absolutely sure they do not know how internet works. For example nobody can strictly define a website. I will omit the fact that it is beyond comprehesion to force the bad actor policy.

The origin of the Bad Actor concept originates in the regulation of land-based gaming, and also in trying to create barriers to organized crime being indirectly involved in licensed land-based gaming properties. So a whole body of law and concepts regarding vendors to the land-based gaming industry is being applied to online gaming. Not at all surprising in my opinion. One would anticipate regulatory bodies steeped in a history of land-gaming regulation to place heavy weight on their tried-and-true concepts when moving into the online gaming arena.

Michael

[MichaelCorfman]

I am curious when the first affiliate site will be seized and the well known sign will appear there instead of content. Probably it is about time for US affiliates to think about .eu, .me and other generic domain alternatives (outside of US jurisdiction, where is any .com, .net, .org, .biz, .info but also .tv and .cc and even .co).

Right now I don't think that could happen in the United States. Certainly I (as the CEO of Casino City) would have never filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department justice requesting a ruling that we had a First Amendment right to promote online gaming back in 2004 if I had viewed there was any possible legal grounds for our sites being seized. If you have not heard of the suit we filed, you can read about it here: online.casinocity.com/firstamendment/.

Michael

[sweetbet]

If I was a U.S based affiliate, and I wanted to be licensed in New Jersey, I would set up a new site to promote online casinos that are licensed in New Jersey only. Then I'd probably have to block all non New Jersey IP addresses from accessing the site. I'm not sure if it'd be worth the effort in the long run.

[Triple7]

I'm happy that I'm not active in the United States. This is very hard for affiliates.

If I was in the United States I don't think I would do it. But it will probably also depend on the number of visitors you get from the licensed states. An affiliate who has more than 50% visitors from licensed states will be much more likely to become licensed.
But you won't have as much competition in the licensed states as most affiliates don't have a license.

For the moment I'm happy I live in Europe and only have European websites. I hope that the European Union doesn't get crazy ideas like this.

Well, you'll never know what European Union got for us

I agree with your post. I'm not a New Jersey licensed affiliate, I won't be and there's no reason for me to apply as I live in Europe. If I were living in the States, I don't know... it's much more difficult. If I see the sites they've got to promote... Not that easy and much more problems I guess.