Florida Gambling Rule Takes Aim at Controversial Card Games
The regulation in question, proposed late last month by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, would make a number of changes and effectively do away with controversial “designated player” card games that have been lucrative for pari-mutuel facilities across the state.
May 09, 2018 at 12:09 PM
4 minute read
A new rule floated by Florida gambling regulators holds a price tag of $50 million a year and could cost hundreds of jobs, according to a lawyer representing several of the state's cardroom operators.
The regulation in question, proposed late last month by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, would make a number of changes and effectively do away with controversial “designated player” card games that have been lucrative for pari-mutuel facilities across the state.
The games have played a central role in a legal dispute between the Seminole Tribe and the state, and the proposed rule followed a revamped agreement inked last month by Gov. Rick Scott and the tribe. That agreement is an outgrowth of a 2010 deal in which the tribe promised to pay the state at least $1 billion over five years in exchange for exclusive rights to offer “banked” card games, such as blackjack, at most of its Florida casinos.
During the legal dispute, Seminole lawyers argued that the way designated-player games were played violated the tribe's exclusive rights to offer banked games. A federal judge sided with the tribe in the dispute, which led to concerns that tribe payments to the state could end — though the tribe did not stop making payments.
The proposed regulation issued by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering would require designated players to “compete and compare their cards against each other to determine the winner(s) of each game.” It would effectively negate the designated-player games.
The new language would “ensure that players compete and compare their cards against each other to determine the winner(s) of each game,” which would end a current practice that allows gamblers to play against a designated player who acts as “the house.”
John Lockwood, a lawyer who represents numerous pari-mutuels, called the proposal a “drastic change” that would have a dramatic impact on gambling operators and workers at the facilities. Lockwood said the change could cost the industry $50 million a year and hundreds of jobs.
“The division's draft rule would be completely detrimental to the entire cardroom industry in Florida,” Lockwood, told The News Service of Florida in an interview Monday.
The revamped agreement announced between Scott and the tribe last month would guarantee until May 2019 the continued flow of Seminole casino cash to the state budget — at least $300 million. Before the agreement was announced, legislative leaders had held behind-the-scenes talks about possibly calling a special session, ostensibly because of concerns that the Seminole money could dry up.
Pointing in part to the agreement, legislative leaders said they would not hold a special session. But the agreement was also a way to head off attempts by lawmakers to expand gambling through steps such as allowing slot machines outside of Broward and Miami-Dade counties, something the Seminoles were trying to clip.
Lawmakers had been eager to sidestep a proposed constitutional amendment that will appear on the November ballot and, if approved, will give voters the say-so over thorny gambling issues, now largely controlled by the Legislature. Key Republicans also wanted to ensure a continuation of at least $300 million the Seminoles now plunk into state coffers.
Under the agreement, the tribe will continue making the payments through the 2019 legislative session. In exchange, the tribe will continue to have exclusive rights to offer games such as blackjack at its casinos and will continue to be the state's only slot-machine operator outside of Miami-Dade and Broward.
But the flow of the money relies, at least in part, on the decision by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle, who sided with the tribe in the dispute with the state.
The payments, under the agreement, rely on “aggressive enforcement action against continued operation of banked card games” at pari-mutuel facilities, which have seen revenue from other activities — such as dog racing — decline in recent years.
Dara Kam reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Brought Under NYC Gender Violence Law, Ruling Claims Barred Under State Measure
No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
5 minute readSecond DCA Greenlights USF Class Certification on COVID-19 College Tuition Refunds
3 minute readFlorida Law Firm Sued for $35 Million Over Alleged Role in Acquisition Deal Collapse
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250