A Safe Bet? Privacy and Security Law for Online Sports Wagering in New York State
As mobile betting platforms and operators enjoy the influx of New York state bettors, they must be aware of the unique privacy and security challenges they face and of the federal and state regulations that apply to the various categories of data that they process.
March 04, 2022 at 02:00 PM
9 minute read
Mobile sports wagering may be new to New York state, but privacy and security threats are not. After the law in New York changed in 2021 to permit mobile sports betting, New York sportsbook apps launched early this year and have set records for total sports betting volume. When gambling occurs online, it creates a perfect storm for privacy and security risks. Online betting companies store an immense amount of personal data, some of it very sensitive. Huge amounts of money are transacted. Hackers are drawn by the data, but also by the opportunity to impact the integrity of the betting to rig wagers in their favor or increase their own notoriety in the dark web community. As mobile betting platforms and operators enjoy the influx of New York state bettors, they must be aware of the unique privacy and security challenges they face and of the federal and state regulations that apply to the various categories of data that they process.
|Intrastate Transactions
The state constitution does not permit gambling except in licensed casinos located in New York state. Accordingly, the law passed in 2021 to allow mobile sports betting (S.B. S2509, 2021 Leg., 2021-2022 Sess., Part Y, §2 (N.Y. 2021)) provides that it is legal so long as the bettor is physically present in New York state at the time of the transaction and all servers of the sports betting platform are physically located in a licensed casino in New York. So, the law limits mobile sports wagering to intrastate transactions. Given the nature of the online ecosystem and the mobility of data, privacy and security laws typically cross state lines. But, somewhat unique to mobile sports betting, the privacy and security laws of New York are the primary compliance focus for operators and platform providers and for the New York state regulators scrutinizing them.
|Who Is Regulated?
New York has created a complex regulatory framework for mobile sports wagering which regulates "platform providers" and "operators," each of which must satisfy compliance requirements as conditions of licensure. The platform itself is the combination of hardware, software, and data networks used to administer sports wagering and any associated wagers accessible by electronic means. The "platform provider" is the entity responsible for managing the platform that the operators then use to facilitate thousands of wagers per day. An "operator" is the mobile sports wagering skin which has been licensed by the Commission to operate a sports pool through a mobile sports wagering platform.
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 AllTrump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
Proposed NY Regulation Targets Nonbanks' Equity in Mortgage Lending
Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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