Chris grove with the scoop Here

Link AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1739

555 pages long, seriously ?

The online/internet stuff seems to start about page 78.

Looks like both banked and unbanked games of skill or chance, i.e. not "poker only".

See, also "Gambling game" includes, but is not limited to,
baccarat, twenty-one, poker, craps, slot machine, video game of
chance, roulette wheel, klondike table, punchboard .... (Does this apply to the online sector as well as riverboats ?)

License fee upon issue is $20,000,000

"Sort of" bad boy provision, tied to taking illegal bets, not money laundering,

Cliffs:

Creates a Division of Internet Gaming (DIG) within the Department of the Lottery

21+ to play.

Authorizes all games of skill or chance, either fee-based (non-house banked) or non-fee based (house banked), as authorized by the DIG.

To wager, must be physically present in Illinois or "otherwise permitted to place a wager by law."

Authorizes interstate and international play where allowed by federal law and the law of the other jurisdiction, or under an inter-jurisdictional agreement.

Authorizes to the DIG to make regulatory inter-jurisdictional agreements.

No sports wagering unless "consistent with State and federal laws."

Licenses and renewals last 5 years.

Licenses available to any entity which has a current license under the Illinois Gambling Act (casinos, riverboats, etc.) and any entity which has a license under the Illinois Horse Racing Act (horse tracks).

Bad-actors clause: ineligible for a license if been convicted of offering wagering over the Internet "in contravention of this Section or United States law" during the ten years prior to applying.

License application fee of $250K.

Licensees must pay an advance deposit against future site taxes of $20M upon receiving their license.

Internet Gaming Vendors (service providers) must be certified by the DIG.

Application fee for a vendor will be determined by the DIG, but no more than $250K.

Bad-actors clause: vendors ineligible for certification if been convicted of accepting wagers over the Internet "in contravention of this Act or in contravention of any law of the United States".

Notices to approve, deny, suspend, revoke, restrict, or refuse to renew Internet gaming licenses and Internet gaming vendor certifications must be delivered from the DIG in person or by Certified Mail. Notices by Certified Mail are deemed delivered one business day after mailing. The party must request a hearing in writing within 5 days of notice to appeal. *Note: Such notices could theoretically arrive after the 5-day period is expired due to mail delays (and intervening weekends and holidays), leaving no option to appeal the notice. At a minimum, this provision should be changed to "5 business days" to make a request for a hearing.

All gaming servers must be located in IL, unless another location is authorized by the DIG.

Site taxes are 20% of gross revenue for non-fee based gaming (house banked) and 15% of gross revenue for fee-based gaming (non-house banked), paid daily on the previous day's wagers.

For the initial five years of a license, the site taxes are reduced on the first $200M of gross gaming revenue to 10% for non-fee-based gaming and 7.5% for fee-based gaming.

The bill does not lay out specifics for things like consumer protections, protection of player funds and privacy, collusion, fraud, money laundering, rng, etc., but gives authority to the DIG to (among other things):

(6) To develop and enforce requirements for responsible gaming and player protection, including privacy and confidentiality standards and duties.
(7) To develop and enforce requirements for accepting Internet wagers, Internet wagering accounts, and authorized participants and minimum insurance
requirements.
(9) To develop and enforce standards and requirements regarding anti-fraud, anti-money laundering, and anti-collusion methods.
(10) To develop protocols related to the security of and disputes arising over Internet wagers and Internet wagering accounts.

and confers authority on the DIG to make rules, "including but not limited to":

(1) the types of Internet games to be offered;
(2) price points for Internet games;
(3) player fees and percentage of rake commission or other fee for Internet games;
(4) forms of payment accepted for Internet games;
(5) the number, type, and amount of prizes for Internet games;
(6) the method of selecting winners and validating winnings;
(7) the frequency of Internet games;
(8) responsible gaming;
(9) technical and financial standards for Internet wagering, Internet wagering accounts, and Internet gaming platforms, systems, and software or other electronic components for Internet gaming;
(10) such other matters necessary or desirable for the efficient and economical operation and administration of Internet gaming and for the convenience of authorized Internet gaming participants and Internet gaming licensees and certified Internet gaming vendors.

Very big deal to attach this to casino expansion. But also a very good chance that internet gambling is a bargaining chip in what will be very complex negotiations over this bill between various competing stakeholders.

Did the NJ/NV laws say anything about international play?

See the sticky:
U.S. States Online Poker Legislation Cliffs

Doesn't look completely terrible.

This is weird language. I'm guessing that they are trying to say any gaming site that offered their services to IL residents of the past 10 years would be ineligible. That would exclude Bwin, 888, Playtech, Ongame, etc.

Thanks for the cliffs, PX.

As I understand it, it means two things:

1. Anyone offering unlicensed online play in IL after enactment of this bill will be ineligible for a license for 10 years.

2. Anyone who previously offered online play in the U.S. which violated federal law during the 10-year period prior to applying for a license is ineligible for a license.

So, anyone offering online sports wagering in the US would be ineligible for an online license for 10 years. However, if an entity can show that they didn't violate US federal law, then they are eligible. For instance, if PokerStars can convince the DIG that they never violated US federal law by offering online poker to US players, then they could do what they are doing in NJ - buy an IL b&m gambling enterprise and then get licensed for online.

Actually, it looks pretty darn good imo. Open licensing for anyone with a b&m license and open licensing for anyone for a service provider certification (except bad actors). Reasonable site taxes on poker (7.5% at first, then 15%). No player penalties. Authorization of interstate and international through inter-jurisdictional agreements.

It would be better if more regulatory details were specified, but OTOH it leaves lots of flexibility for corrections and new developments through the regulatory process.

That was me being surprised.

And to think I was ready to leave Chicago.

this is gonna be big year. online poker is starting to gain a lot of momentum.

IL would be huge, large pop. state not typically affiliated with gambling.....shuld get the ball rolling quite nicely.

GOGOGOGO IL!

http://pokerfuse.com/features/in-dep...ndscape-07-03/

Hopefully Missouri will follow suit.

I analyzed this bill last night. It looks like operators and vendors have two different bad actor clauses. Operators have a 10-year blackout while vendors that operated in US would be banned forever. Interestingly, the Illinois Lottery would be the internet gaming commission. GTECH holds 80% of a company that operates the main lottery contract. Under the language of the current bill, GTECH (assuming they classify as a vendor) would be excluded forever because Boss Media accepted US players pre-UIGEA.

I cannot come up with any online poker company that could qualify under this term if you assume that if the company is tainted so is their software.

Ahh the joys of the state-by-state route to regulated US iPoker. It's gonna be a bitch to get any states to legislate things similarly enough to join player pools.

This assumes, of course, that the IL Division of Internet Gaming determines that operation of Internet poker for US players violated US federal law, both pre- and post-UIGEA.

What is the difference between a vendor and an operator? Can you give some examples of each?

Operators are the existing stakeholders (Riverboat Casinos, Racetracks, etc) who would own 'skins' and venders would be the software provider, examples Playtech, Scientific Games, etc.

The statute would allow PokerStars to buy a casino right now (no criminal conviction previous 10 years), own a skin 10 years from enactment (contravention of UIGEA), but never be a software provider to their (or any other) IL casino (contravention of UIGEA).

Operator is an entity that is granted a license to operate an online site. Only companies holding a valid license for b&m gambling (casinos, river boats, race tracks) will be eligible for an operator license.

Vendor is any entity providing services to the operators, including software providers, help centers, payment processors, geolocation services, equipment manufacturers, etc. For example, in NV PartyPoker will be providing the software platform for MGM, so PartyPoker is what IL calls a vendor.

In IL, operators will have to be "licensed" to offer online gaming, and vendors will have to be "certified" to provide their goods or services to licensed sites. The process to get licensed or certified will be essentially the same - apply, pay a fee, background checks and such. Software and hardware will undergo testing. The standards will be set by the IL Division of Internet Gaming.

None of those people have ever operated online poker sites so the ten year provision seems absurd and pointless. Basically what they are saying is that there is a lifetime ban for anybody who ever previously accepted online bets from US players.

Nice...