Author: camel

(AsiaGameHub) - New Jersey is edging closer to prohibiting micro bets, one of the speediest types of in-game wagering. On March 23, a Senate committee approved SB 2160, sending the bill to the Senate floor for a second reading. Good to Know SB 2160 would prohibit wagers on the next play, pitch, or immediate in-game action. Senators Paul Moriarty and Patrick Diegnan are the bill’s sponsors. Penalties would be $500 to $1,000 per violation. New Jersey Pushes Back Against Micro Betting The bill would prevent sportsbooks from offering or taking wagers on outcomes like whether the next baseball pitch will be a strike or if the next football play will be a run or pass. Unlike regular live betting, micro bets are settled in seconds and let users place another wager right away. Supporters cite two key risks. Moriarty noted that the format is more easily manipulated, as an insider with info on the next play could gain an advantage. He also stated that the product’s speed can lead to excessive, impulsive gambling. Diegnan added that the nonstop betting opportunities make micro bets riskier than traditional wagering. Violations would be classified as a disorderly persons offense.New Jersey doesn’t release separate data on micro bets, but Rutgers University research for state regulators found in-game betting makes up a significant portion of activity. The most recent study showed that two-thirds of state bettors place in-game wagers, and high-intensity bettors make up over 50% of in-game volume. The research also found that in-game betting increases the likelihood of overspending. Operators have already demonstrated the importance of live betting. DraftKings CEO Jason Robins stated during a first-quarter 2025 earnings call that live betting accounted for over half of the company’s handle. In established European markets, in-game betting makes up more than 60% of wagers. New Jersey isn’t the only one. New York has proposed similar legislation, and Major League Baseball struck agreements last November to limit pitch-level bets to $200 and exclude them from parlays, citing integrity issues. This article is provided by a third-party. AsiaGameHub (https://asiagamehub.com/) makes no warranties regarding its content. AsiaGameHub delivers targeted distribution for iGaming, Casino, and eSports, connecting 3,000+ premium Asian media outlets and 80,000+ specialized influencers across ASEAN.

(AsiaGameHub) - Financial institutions are divided on prediction markets. While certain companies are expanding into the space, others are prohibiting staff participation due to increasing regulatory worries. Good to Know Trading in prediction markets has been prohibited for employees at Point72 Asset Management and Balyasny Asset Management. JPMorgan Chase permits participation as long as standard personal trading guidelines are followed. A more proactive strategy is being adopted by Susquehanna International Group and DRW. Divergent Stances on Prediction Markets Across Wall Street According to Bloomberg, Point72 Asset Management and Balyasny Asset Management have instituted total bans on staff trading, despite other firms recently considering specialized desks and recruiting talent with expertise in Kalshi and Polymarket. This shift highlights a rapid change in outlook. Compliance departments are concerned about legal disputes, the risk of insider trading, and the lack of regulatory clarity surrounding the industry. Documentation remains a significant hurdle. In the U.S., these markets are classified as derivatives under CFTC oversight. However, platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi often lack the electronic record-keeping capabilities required for firms to monitor and report compliance.Approaches vary across the industry. JPMorgan Chase has informed its staff that they may engage in these markets provided they adhere to the same personal trading protocols applied to other asset classes. Some organizations are doubling down. Susquehanna International Group employs approximately 60 traders focused on prediction markets in Dublin and Pennsylvania. Additionally, the company serves as Kalshi's inaugural official market maker and maintains an equity position in the platform. DRW is also seeking a specialized prediction market trader to handle strategies involving arbitrage, market-making, and event-driven plays on platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket. The Investment Adviser Association, representing over 600 firms with roughly $35 trillion in assets under management, noted a significant increase in inquiries from members regarding compliance within prediction markets. This article is provided by a third-party. AsiaGameHub (https://asiagamehub.com/) makes no warranties regarding its content. AsiaGameHub delivers targeted distribution for iGaming, Casino, and eSports, connecting 3,000+ premium Asian media outlets and 80,000+ specialized influencers across ASEAN.

(AsiaGameHub) - California lawsuits are applying new pressure to Whatnot regarding how sports card breaks are sold on its platform. Plaintiffs argue the format amounts to illegal gambling, but the company disputes this and states gambling is prohibited on the site. Good to Know The cases encompass 15 arbitration claims with 30 plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert that random card breaks and repacks violate California gaming laws. Whatnot stated it denies the claims and prohibits gambling on its platform. California Lawsuits Target the Random Aspect of Whatnot’s Card Sales A California legal battle now centers on one of the most popular elements of the modern sports card market. Instead of targeting standard card sales, the lawsuits zero in on live breaks and repacks—where buyers pay before learning which cards they’ll receive. That difference is significant. Plaintiffs aren’t challenging direct card purchases where the item is known in advance. Instead, they’re targeting the random format tied to unopened boxes and repack products. In these breaks, customers pay first, then a streamer opens the product live, and the final value can fluctuate drastically based on what’s inside. The lawsuits claim this setup resembles a lottery more than retail. Buyers pay for a shot at something valuable, with outcomes unknown until the pack is opened during the stream. Plaintiffs contend this structure violates state rules against illegal lotteries.Whatnot is a key player in the industry. The platform reported over $8 billion in sales in 2025 and moves more than six million trading cards monthly. That scale is one reason the case could have implications far beyond a single company—if plaintiffs win, it could reshape how live card breaks operate across the broader hobby. The complaints sharply criticize the platform’s self-representation. “Whatnot claims to run a ‘marketplace’ where live shopping connects ‘buyers’ and ‘sellers.’ This is a facade,” the case’s plaintiffs told The Athletic. The filing goes further: “In practice, Whatnot runs an unregulated online casino that preys on its customers by encouraging compulsive spending—generating billions in revenue without the protections mandatory for regulated gambling operations.” Allegations of Addiction That argument is supported by addiction claims from those involved in the cases. Attorney Paul Lesko told The Athletic that several clients were drawn in by the randomness and the thrill of the bidding and reveal process. “Our clients quickly became addicted to it,” he said. “… At some point, they even stop caring about the cards. It’s just the dopamine rush from bidding and winning an auction to secure a spot for the chance to get a team they want.”Repacks are also at the heart of the dispute. Unlike factory-sealed products, repacks are assembled by operators from cards they’ve already collected, then resold for break-style reveals. Critics say this adds another layer of concern because the product exists mainly for randomized resale. Plaintiffs are seeking multiple remedies: restitution, warnings for future breaks, spending limits, punitive damages, and a court ruling that the disputed activity is unlawful. Whatnot is pushing back. The company denied operating illegal gambling through its platform. In a statement to The Athletic, it said: “We completely reject the characterization in this complaint.” The company added: “Gambling isn’t allowed on Whatnot, and we enforce this policy rigorously.” This article is provided by a third-party. AsiaGameHub (https://asiagamehub.com/) makes no warranties regarding its content. AsiaGameHub delivers targeted distribution for iGaming, Casino, and eSports, connecting 3,000+ premium Asian media outlets and 80,000+ specialized influencers across ASEAN.

(AsiaGameHub) - A fresh legal battle has begun between the NCAA and DraftKings regarding betting promotions linked to college basketball tournament branding. The disagreement focuses on whether DraftKings is allowed to use popular NCAA tournament terms in sportsbook menus, advertisements, and other consumer-facing materials. Good to Know The NCAA is seeking an emergency restraining order against DraftKings. The terms in question include March Madness, Final Four, Elite Eight, and Sweet Sixteen. DraftKings claims its use of these terms is descriptive and protected by the First Amendment. Instead of concentrating on betting regulations, the most recent conflict between college sports and sportsbooks revolves around branding. In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, the NCAA requested a judge to prohibit DraftKings from using a set of tournament-related terms across its sportsbook products and promotions. The case hinges on “March Madness,” “Final Four,” “Elite Eight,” and “Sweet Sixteen,” plus their related variations. According to the NCAA, these marks serve to identify and distinguish its men’s and women’s basketball tournaments across broadcasts, digital platforms, merchandise, sponsorships, and licensed business operations. The legal filing states that DraftKings integrated these terms into betting menus, marketing materials, and promotional visuals shown to users. Screenshots from DraftKings’ platforms were included as exhibits in the complaint.Wrong Timing? Timing plays a significant role in the NCAA’s argument. The association alleged that DraftKings began using the terms when public attention around the tournaments was at its peak. “On the eve of the Tournaments, DraftKings deliberately adopted and prominently began using the NCAA iconic NCAA Basketball Marks, including confusingly similar variations thereof, to trade on — and usurp — the immense goodwill, recognition, and consumer trust embodied in those Marks at the precise moment of peak public attention,” the complaint said. The NCAA further contended that this unauthorized use quickly spread across customer-facing channels. “DraftKings unlawful use quickly proliferated across its consumer-facing websites and mobile applications, embedding the marks and logos into betting menus, promotional graphics, and marketing publications, to deliberately exacerbate consumer confusion and reinforce a false association with or sponsorship by the NCAA in order to continuously capitalize on the goodwill of the NCAA,” the complaint said. DraftKings is taking a completely different stance. The company stated that it does not treat “March Madness” as a trademark in its sportsbook displays; instead, it uses the phrase in plain text to identify tournament games. “DraftKings does not use the term March Madness as a trademark, but rather uses it in plain text and as a fair use in the same manner that other tournaments are displayed, such as the NIT, in order to accurately identify the different tournaments and their respective games,” DraftKings said. “It is protected speech under the First Amendment and is not a violation of any brand trademark. We are confident that the courts will deny this request for an injunction.” Beyond the trademark dispute, the NCAA used this case to emphasize its broader separation from gambling operators. The association noted that it has rejected sportsbook sponsorships, banned athletes and staff from participating in betting, and opposed prop bets and micro-bets. It also highlighted ongoing efforts to reduce harassment and improper influence tied to college sports wagering.This broader concern resurfaced in a separate NCAA statement related to the complaint. “Every day that DraftKings continues to use these marks, millions of sports fans — and, critically, college students and young adults who are particularly susceptible to gambling harm — are exposed to the false suggestion that the Association has authorized or endorsed DraftKings gambling platform,” the NCAA said in a statement. FAQ What is the NCAA asking the court to do? The NCAA is seeking an emergency restraining order that would require DraftKings to stop using tournament-related terms in its sportsbook offerings, advertising, and associated materials. Which terms are in dispute? The complaint lists March Madness, Final Four, Elite Eight, and Sweet Sixteen, along with similar variations, as the terms at issue. Where was the complaint filed? The NCAA submitted the complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. What is DraftKings defense? DraftKings asserts that it uses the terms descriptively in plain text (not as trademarks) and that this use is protected speech under the First Amendment. Why does the NCAA say the use is harmful? The NCAA argues that the use creates consumer confusion and implies a false connection or endorsement between the association and the sportsbook.What wider gambling concerns did the NCAA mention? The association stated that it avoids sportsbook partnerships, prohibits betting by athletes and staff, and opposes wagering formats like prop bets and micro-bets. This article is provided by a third-party. AsiaGameHub (https://asiagamehub.com/) makes no warranties regarding its content. AsiaGameHub delivers targeted distribution for iGaming, Casino, and eSports, connecting 3,000+ premium Asian media outlets and 80,000+ specialized influencers across ASEAN.

(AsiaGameHub) - Fanatics Sportsbook has introduced a new wagering option known as Squad Bets, offering customers an alternative method to construct parlays across major sports. This feature enables bettors to assemble a group of players working toward a single combined statistical goal rather than depending on individual prop bets to succeed sequentially. Good to Know Squad Bets enables users to create a roster of three to six athletes. The functionality is operational at Fanatics Sportsbook throughout eligible markets. NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL, and prominent soccer competitions are included in the launch. Fanatics Sportsbook debuted Squad Bets on Tuesday as a fresh alternative for gamblers who favor team-oriented combinations instead of conventional player prop parlays. The mechanism is straightforward. A participant can select a collection of athletes and designate a unified objective for them. For instance, if five NBA competitors are chosen to accumulate 100 collective points, the bet remains active provided the ensemble achieves that total. This concept extends to other sports, like running backs amassing five touchdowns together. This alters the conventional parlay structure. In a typical player prop parlay, a single failure can void the entire wager. With Squad Bets, an individual athlete may underperform while the bet can still pay out if the remaining members propel the squad to its goal."Squad Bets brings a radically different approach to parlay wagering," stated Michael Fitzsimmons, Senior Vice President of Brand Marketing at Fanatics Sportsbook. "By moving the emphasis from individual components to group accomplishment, Squad Bets provides a more customized gambling experience that reflects how enthusiasts engage with athletics." Squad Bets also integrates with additional Fanatics functionalities. FanCash rewards are applicable to these wagers, and Fair Play Injury Protection functions within the team-assembly format, meaning a single injured competitor won't automatically nullify the bet. Fanatics presently operates its digital sportsbook across 23 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. Participants can monitor Squad Bets in real time through the Fanatics application.For basketball, accessible markets encompass points, rebounds, assists, and three-pointers. Baseball selections comprise strikeouts, runs, home runs, hits, runs batted in, and total bases. Hockey includes goals, points, assists, and shots. Football will feature touchdowns, receptions, receiving yards, rushing yards, passing yards, and passing touchdowns. Soccer markets will concentrate on goals and shots. FAQ What is Squad Bets at Fanatics Sportsbook? Squad Bets is a parlay-type function that allows users to merge three to six athletes toward a single collective statistical objective. How is Squad Bets different from a normal parlay? A conventional parlay typically collapses when one component fails. Squad Bets permits the entire ensemble to achieve the target collectively. Which sports are included? Fanatics indicated Squad Bets will encompass NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL, and significant soccer matches. What stats can bettors use? Markets comprise points, rebounds, assists, three-pointers, home runs, hits, strikeouts, goals, shots, touchdowns, passing yards, and additional options based on the sport. Does Squad Bets work with FanCash and injury protection? Yes. Fanatics confirmed Squad Bets contributes to FanCash accumulation and also operates with Fair Play Injury Protection. This article is provided by a third-party. AsiaGameHub (https://asiagamehub.com/) makes no warranties regarding its content. AsiaGameHub delivers targeted distribution for iGaming, Casino, and eSports, connecting 3,000+ premium Asian media outlets and 80,000+ specialized influencers across ASEAN.

(AsiaGameHub) - Brazil is gearing up for additional restrictions on online betting platforms. According to Vice President Geraldo Alckmin, the government plans to strengthen regulations as retail groups continue to pressure Brasília regarding concerns about consumer spending, debt levels, and gambling addiction. Good to Know Brazil intends to impose further restrictions on betting platforms following previous regulatory and tax actions. Retail groups argue that betting is negatively impacting household spending and increasing debt burdens. Betting industry groups dispute these claims, citing retail growth statistics. Brazil's Betting Debate Escalates into Conflict Over Spending and Regulation New limitations on online betting are under consideration in Brazil. Following a meeting with retail leaders in Brasília, Vice President Geraldo Alckmin stated that the government is readying additional measures to address risks associated with betting apps and mobile gaming. "We also addressed the matter of… bets… They were unregulated and entirely underground. So we regulated them, applied taxes, and will implement further restrictions to curb this mobile gaming, which is deeply concerning and leads to gambling addiction," Alckmin stated. Retail sector pressure has significantly influenced this initiative. Representatives from the Brazilian Association of Supermarkets and the Brazilian Association of Wholesalers and Distributors attended the meeting, where they once again connected the expansion of betting to reduced consumption and growing household debt. For retailers, this has become a primary focus of their lobbying efforts in recent months.However, data from Brazil's Finance Ministry presents a more nuanced view. Statistics acquired through the Access to Information Law reveal that 53.4% of bettors spend a maximum of $9.47 monthly on sports betting and online games. An additional 11.45% spend between R$50 and R$150, 6.4% spend between R$150 and R$300, 9.4% spend between R$300 and R$1,000, and 19.5% spend over R$1,000 per month. The average monthly expenditure in 2025 was R$122. Industry groups have leveraged these figures to counter the claims. In June 2025, ABRAS initiated a campaign advocating for increased taxes on betting operators, prompting a legal challenge from the National Association of Games and Lotteries. ANJL dismissed the assertion that betting resulted in R$103 billion ($19.51 billion) in retail losses as unfounded. The organization stated that these accusations "lack empirical support" and characterized them as "broad and potentially defamatory claims that exceed criticism of individual entities and target the entire industry." It also pointed to official retail figures. "IBGE official data indicates that retail sales grew by 4.7% in 2024, with no concrete evidence connecting the sector's performance to the regulated gambling market," the group stated.Plínio Lemos Jorge escalated the criticism, accusing retailers of seeking a scapegoat for rising food prices. He claimed the retail sector had decided to "select a scapegoat" for this issue. "In their view, betting is to blame. This is absurd, as it spreads misinformation aimed at attacking a legitimate economic sector that will generate billions in taxes this year alone," he said. For the government, however, the next phase seems to involve increased rather than reduced control. Brazil has already taken steps to regulate and tax betting, aiming to bring a previously informal market into a formal framework. The focus is now moving toward stricter protections, particularly concerning addiction risks and mobile accessibility. The same Brasília meeting also addressed other retail policy matters, such as full-service pharmacies within supermarkets and discussions surrounding the Worker Food Program. Nevertheless, betting emerged as one of the most politically charged topics. An additional concern looms in the background. Some analysts caution that excessive restrictions could drive users away from licensed operators toward offshore or illegal platforms. One analyst noted that stricter limits on legal platforms "would benefit the illegal market" if consumers seek options beyond regulated channels. This article is provided by a third-party. AsiaGameHub (https://asiagamehub.com/) makes no warranties regarding its content. AsiaGameHub delivers targeted distribution for iGaming, Casino, and eSports, connecting 3,000+ premium Asian media outlets and 80,000+ specialized influencers across ASEAN.

(AsiaGameHub) - Kalshi has introduced new trading limitations designed to mitigate insider trading risks associated with political and sports contracts. The changes were announced on Monday, a time when prediction markets are grappling with legal scrutiny and renewed concerns about market integrity. Good to Know Kalshi will prohibit political candidates from trading in markets related to their own campaigns. Athletes, referees, and other sports staff will be restricted from participating in specific sports markets relevant to their roles. Polymarket, another prediction market platform, also released revised insider trading guidelines on Monday. Kalshi stated that the new restrictions are proactive measures that have been in the works for several months. However, the timing of the announcement attracted notice, as it came only hours after a bipartisan U.S. Senate bill was proposed to outlaw prediction market contracts for sports events. Per the new policy, political candidates seeking office will be excluded from trading in markets connected to their own campaigns. Additionally, Kalshi is preventing individuals associated with college and professional sports—such as athletes, staff members, and referees—from trading in markets related to the leagues they are part of. The company is implementing these changes amid mounting pressure on prediction markets from multiple fronts. Over a dozen states have ongoing lawsuits that question the legality of sports event contracts. Concurrently, atypical trading activity has sparked further doubts about the integrity of markets focused on political and global events.Polymarket, a competing platform, also issued enhanced insider trading guidance on Monday. Collectively, these changes indicate that leading prediction market operators are working to strengthen their controls as legal and political pressures continue to grow. Not all parties are satisfied with Kalshi’s tightened restrictions. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) argues that the measures are insufficient, noting that significant risks remain and that further restrictions are necessary beyond what has been put in place. This is absolutely not enough. Just on the policy piece alone, there are SO many individuals – staff, advisors, consultants, cabinet secretaries, spouses, and more – that can trade on insider information.This is just a fig leaf to deflect from criticism. We need to do more. https://t.co/9arxK8KPF0 — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 23, 2026 This article is provided by a third-party. AsiaGameHub (https://asiagamehub.com/) makes no warranties regarding its content. AsiaGameHub delivers targeted distribution for iGaming, Casino, and eSports, connecting 3,000+ premium Asian media outlets and 80,000+ specialized influencers across ASEAN.

(AsiaGameHub) - Information from Brazil's Ministry of Finance reveals that the majority of individuals using sports betting and online gaming sites spend moderate sums monthly. The data also provides a more detailed picture of age and gender distributions within the regulated sector. Good to Know 53.4% of bettors in Brazil spend a maximum of R$50 each month. Male users constitute 68.2% of the total, with females representing 31.8%. Approximately 19.5% spend over R$1,000 monthly, equating to roughly 4.3 million individuals. The statistics, provided by Pay4Fun and featured in Tácio Lorran's column for Metrópoles, originate from Ministry of Finance data acquired via the Access to Information Law. They indicate that low monthly expenditure continues to be standard for a significant portion of the betting population in Brazil. Over half of all users, precisely 53.4%, spend no more than R$50 per month on these activities. An additional 11.45% spend between R$50.01 and R$150, and 6.4% are in the R$150.01 to R$300 bracket. A further 9.4% allocate between R$300.01 and R$1,000 monthly. On the higher end, 19.5% of bettors state they spend more than R$1,000 each month. This segment is estimated to include about 4.3 million people.The figures also reveal a distinct gender division. Men represent 68.2% of bettors, whereas women make up 31.8%. In terms of age, the most prominent category is 31 to 40 years old, comprising 28.63% of total users. Those aged 25 to 30 account for 22.21%, and bettors aged 24 and under represent 22.06%. Engagement subsequently declines with age: 17.20% for ages 41 to 50, 7.02% for 51 to 60, 2.17% for 61 to 70, and 0.60% for individuals over 70. Leonardo Baptista, chief executive and co-founder of Pay4Fun, commented that the data highlights a market predominantly characterized by lower spending tiers: “We must recognize that Brazilians enjoy entertainment, and the industry exists to provide it.“An emphasis on prohibition would only strip away what is now a regulated market, complete with rules and support, and drive it entirely into the illegal sphere, which lacks support, oversight, and prize guarantees.” The research did not specify which platforms are most frequently used by bettors. It also did not detail the most favored games or types of wagers. This article is provided by a third-party. AsiaGameHub (https://asiagamehub.com/) makes no warranties regarding its content. AsiaGameHub delivers targeted distribution for iGaming, Casino, and eSports, connecting 3,000+ premium Asian media outlets and 80,000+ specialized influencers across ASEAN.

(AsiaGameHub) - Maryland legislators have advanced two bills targeting sweepstakes casinos through the House, forwarding both to the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. Concurrently, a distinct initiative to legalize online casinos stalled ahead of a crucial legislative deadline. Good to Know HB 295 passed the House on March 20 by a 105 to 25 vote. HB 1226 passed on March 23 by a 134 to 2 vote. Maryland online casino bills did not advance before Crossover Day. Maryland House Moves 2 Sweepstakes Casino Bills to Senate Maryland has moved a step closer to prohibiting sweepstakes casinos. Both House Bill 295 and House Bill 1226 were approved by the House and are now directed to the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. HB 295 aims to establish a new criminal prohibition against what the legislation terms interactive games. This refers to online or mobile platforms utilizing multiple forms of currency that are convertible into prizes or cash equivalents while mimicking casino games, lottery offerings, or sports wagering. Games that provide only non-monetary prizes would remain exempt from the ban. The legislation's scope extends beyond just platform operators. It also applies to promoters and other individuals associated with such platforms. Potential penalties include fines from $10,000 to $100,000 and prison sentences of up to three years.HB 295 progressed slowly before its floor vote. Following a February 5 hearing in the Ways and Means Committee, the bill was inactive for over a month. Legislators ultimately advanced it on March 19 after amending its enforcement provisions. During the floor discussion, some representatives expressed concerns about the wording potentially affecting free-to-play users. The second piece of legislation, HB 1226, is designed to bolster enforcement capabilities. It would grant regulators expanded authority to issue cease-and-desist orders, block financial transactions and platform access, and seek both civil and criminal penalties against unlawful operators and their service providers. Maryland's General Assembly must still approve at least one of these bills before the session concludes. Should that occur, Maryland would become the eighth state to outlaw sweepstakes casinos, joining Indiana and six others. While the anti-sweepstakes measures progressed, efforts to legalize online casinos faced setbacks. Two Senate bills intended to establish a regulatory framework for iGaming did not move forward before the General Assembly's crossover deadline, halting that initiative for the time being. This article is provided by a third-party. AsiaGameHub (https://asiagamehub.com/) makes no warranties regarding its content. AsiaGameHub delivers targeted distribution for iGaming, Casino, and eSports, connecting 3,000+ premium Asian media outlets and 80,000+ specialized influencers across ASEAN.

(AsiaGameHub) - bet365 has departed the American Gaming Association, adding another high-profile operator to the string of member losses the trade group has seen in recent months. This exit follows the departures of FanDuel and DraftKings, as the U.S. gambling industry continues to split over prediction markets and the future direction of national gambling policy. Key Highlights bet365 cites the AGA’s focus on retail casinos as the reason behind its exit. Both FanDuel and DraftKings exited the association in November 2025. Fanatics and OpenBet have also departed within the same six-month period. bet365 Grows AGA’s List of Member Losses Another major industry operator has cut ties with the American Gaming Association. bet365 confirmed its exit, noting the trade group’s priorities no longer align with its goals as a digital-first company. “As a digital-first operator, bet365 has withdrawn from the AGA due to the organization’s heavy focus on the retail casino industry,” a bet365 spokesperson told iGaming.org on Tuesday. “We place great value on our industry partnerships and remain committed to working constructively with regulators and partners across all markets where we operate.” bet365’s decision comes after the earlier departures of FanDuel and DraftKings, both of which left the association in November 2025. For those two firms, disagreement over prediction markets was the core of the split. Both companies signaled clear interest in growing in that sector, while the AGA took a firm hardline stance against sports event contracts. In a December 2025 membership letter, AGA chief executive Bill Miller wrote: “Our position is clear and unwavering: sports event contracts are a form of gambling, and gambling is regulated by individual states and tribal nations. “In 2026, we will continue to defend this regulatory framework and uphold state authority and tribal sovereignty.” bet365 pointed to the AGA’s retail casino focus, rather than disagreement over prediction markets, as its reason for leaving. Even so, the broader industry divide is impossible to miss. Multiple large operators see significant growth opportunity in prediction markets, despite the ongoing legal and regulatory fights currently underway. FanDuel made this same position clear when it exited last year. “FanDuel has built our business by maintaining strong industry partnerships, and we value the collaborative spirit that comes with these relationships,” a FanDuel spokesperson said in November. “But as we expand into prediction markets, we recognize this growth direction is not aligned with the American Gaming Association’s current priorities for its member operators.” The spokesperson added: “FanDuel has always been an agile, forward-moving company, from daily fantasy to mobile sports betting to prediction markets. We build what consumers want, and we operate with an unwavering commitment to integrity.” For the AGA, bet365’s exit adds to a difficult stretch. Fanatics and OpenBet have also left within the same six-month window, leaving the group with a growing gap between its retail-focused policy priorities and the direction many digital operators want to pursue. This article is provided by a third-party. AsiaGameHub (https://asiagamehub.com/) makes no warranties regarding its content. AsiaGameHub delivers targeted distribution for iGaming, Casino, and eSports, connecting 3,000+ premium Asian media outlets and 80,000+ specialized influencers across ASEAN.

(AsiaGameHub) - Alberta has established significant deadlines for operators seeking to participate in a regulated market for online sports betting and casino games. The Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Commission (AGLC) has issued new guidance that clarifies the timeline for applications, the exit from the grey market, and the rules for transitioning player accounts. Key Takeaways Operators are required to submit applications and fees by July 13, 2026. In specific instances, the AGLC may grant extensions until October 13, 2026. While over 55 operator sites have indicated interest, only nine had paid fees as of March 17. Alberta Establishes Deadlines as iGaming Launch Approaches The AGLC has outlined crucial dates for private operators in anticipation of a potential spring launch for regulated iGaming in Alberta. This guidance applies to sports betting websites, online casino platforms, and grey market operators currently accepting wagers in the province without official authorization. According to the new framework, any operator or affiliated entity operating an unregulated lottery scheme in Alberta is required to file a complete application and pay all applicable fees by July 13, 2026. Additionally, these operators must cease accepting unregulated wagers by this deadline. The AGLC indicated that it might provide a case-by-case extension of up to three months, setting October 13, 2026, as the final cutoff date. However, the regulator noted that such extensions would only be granted if an operator can demonstrate a path to compliance that was not achievable prior to July 13.July 13 does not mark the official market launch date. The guidance specifies that the Alberta iGaming Corporation will decide the go-live date. If the launch occurs after July 13, unregulated activities must halt by the go-live date, although no extension can extend beyond October 13. If the launch is delayed until after October 13, all grey market activities must nevertheless cease on the launch day. The AGLC cautioned that non-compliance with these rules could result in a determination of unsuitability for registration in Alberta. This is significant as the province seems to be utilizing the transition period to compel grey market brands to either join the regulated system legitimately or withdraw. Interest appears robust, at least theoretically. The AGLC reported that over 55 operator sites have shown interest in entering the market. However, as of the March 17 guidance document, only nine had remitted the required fees. The AGLC also stated it is monitoring advertising and broader market activities closely, noting that persistent non-compliance could influence future suitability rulings. For players, a practical concern is prominent. Operators joining the new framework are required to settle or void all outstanding wagers prior to launch. This encompasses futures bets placed with grey market sportsbooks. Furthermore, operators must refund player balances and provide clear explanations regarding the timelines and processes for account closure.This requirement reflects a portion of the transition process in Ontario before its competitive iGaming market launched in 2022. Alberta is largely adopting this model and is set to become the second Canadian province to feature an open, regulated online gambling market. Currently, Play Alberta is the sole authorized site in the province. Speaking to iGaming.org, an AGLC spokesperson revealed that the regulator is collaborating with Service Alberta, Red Tape Reduction, and the Alberta iGaming Corporation regarding a spring launch. The spokesperson emphasized that informing operators about the transition period is crucial as the launch of an open regulated market draws near. Some foundational work is still pending. The Alberta iGaming Corporation must be fully operational and finalize contracts with operators. Additionally, fees continue to pose a challenge for some applicants. Operators are subject to a one-time application fee of $50,000, an annual registration fee of $150,000, and a de facto tax rate slightly exceeding 20%. This article is provided by a third-party. AsiaGameHub (https://asiagamehub.com/) makes no warranties regarding its content. AsiaGameHub delivers targeted distribution for iGaming, Casino, and eSports, connecting 3,000+ premium Asian media outlets and 80,000+ specialized influencers across ASEAN.