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
© 2024 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 AllRogge Dunn Represents Florida Trucking Firm in Civil RICO Suit Against Worldwide Express
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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