Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 MAY 2019

DOJ's Wire Act Interpretation Adds Hurdle For Stakeholders

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader
Contributor
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is a global law firm trusted by clients to deliver on complex, high-stakes...

View firm profile
Explore more from Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

In theory, May 14, 2018, should have marked a major shift in America's sports betting landscape. That day, the Supreme Court, in Murphy v. NCAA, rejected the federal law that prohibited most states

United StatesMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

In theory, May 14, 2018, should have marked a major shift in America’s sports betting landscape. That day, the Supreme Court, in Murphy v. NCAA, rejected the federal law that prohibited most states from legalizing sports betting. Individual states, said the justices, have the power to authorize and regulate sports betting within their borders. To no one’s surprise, happy sports fans interpreted the decision to mean that the nation’s highest court had opened the floodgates to legal internet and app-based sports betting.

That celebration was short-lived. At the outset, fan enthusiasm was misplaced because the Supreme Court’s decision did not legalize anything. It simply cleared the way for states to choose whether and how to authorize sports betting. Although some states moved quickly to authorize sports betting, including online and app-based betting, those plans faced an unexpected challenge in January 2019 when the Department of Justice released a new interpretation

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from