6 ms·

Yeah, a quick read of the relevant regs tells me Fanduel is gonna lose this one (Unless i've missed something)[1,2] The law on this is pretty clear, and they c

Yeah, a quick read of the relevant regs tells me Fanduel is gonna lose this one (Unless i've missed something)[1,2] The law on this is pretty clear, and they can't unilaterally decide not to apply the gaming regulations of the state, or change them through their contracts. (They can decide not to do business in states they don't like the regulations of course) BTW, somewhat hilariously, the part they "..."'d is just 4 words. [1] http://state.nj.us/lps/ge/docs/Regulations/CHAPTER69N.pdf http://state.nj.us/lps/ge/docs/Regulations/CHAPTER69N.pdf [2] (c) Upon accepting a wager pursuant to this chapter, a wagering cashier shall cause the wagering system to generate a wagering ticket. (IE them generating the ticket is acceptance) (d) A wagering operator shall not unilaterally rescind any wager pursuant to this chapter without the prior written approval of the Division. (h) Winning wagering tickets shall be redeemed by a wagering cashier after verifying the validity of the wagering ticket through the wagering system. (IE they should have redeemed it because it was valid) (k) No wagering ticket shall be voided after the start of the wagering event on which a wager has been placed Another reason the could not have voided it. Essentially the best argument they have is that it's a house rule under 13:69N2-2 . This only works if their internal controls were approved by the division. Even then, a reasonable court would likely find that clearly contrary to the written regulations (and thus, not a reasonable interpretation of the regulations by the commission).

Arzh 8y ago
Good reply, I'm wondering they they will try to tie it to how slot machines handle errors ("All errors void play") which just payback the bet but don't payout.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  In most states the regulations covering slot machines explicitly cover error. one of the most interesting parts is I can't find any part of the wagering regulations that cover error here. It's entirely possible they should but as far as I could tell they currently do not
- bsder 8y ago
  Setting the odds incorrectly isn't considered to be an "error". If your slot machine is supposed to pay out 1000:1 and you set it for 1:1000, sucks to be you, but it isn't an "error". Actually: I apparently stand corrected. The situation generally gets investigated by the state board who works out the appropriate remedy.
- nikanj 8y ago
  Slot machines go through an absolutely grueling certification process. Interesting to see if FanDuel is willing to subject their software to it.
stochastic_monk 8y ago
I also wonder what they mean by mistake. I’m guessing these are set algorithmically; you can’t honestly label the times you lose money by trusting your code as mistakes while keeping money from the times it’s successful.
sandworm101 8y ago
But these are still contracts, subject to the basics of contract law. Contracts are not meant to be gotcha moments where one side leverages the mistakes of another. Look to the booking of flights. A small error here and there on price will be enforced. But a monumental error leveraged by people who would otherwise not fly will nullify the contract (ie hundreds of people suddenly booking first class travel London-Johannesburg because the website underpriced such tickets). So in this case, where the remarkable odds were spotted by someone who knew it was a probable error, and would not have otherwise made the bet except for the error, I think a court will nullify. What if it were billion-to-one odds? Should a company be destroyed because of a single numerical mistake? There is a line and I think this situation crosses it.
- posterboy 8y ago
  What if it were a 1% fudge above normal? That's frequent. Is it the liability of the pundit to check global markets? A billion to one odd would be unusual granted, but where is the cut off? Clearly this argument is not appropriate. Conversely, bookies do not have to take into account whether pundits are likely making a mistake. Betting schemes thrive on the appearance that the bookie made a mistake. Either way, the places I know limit possible wins (e.g. 1000$ for a bigger, casual one). And even if not, they should be allow to take bets only if they can back it up. That a pundit could not nullify the bet for the same reason is an edge the bank system abuses to no end. It's institutional. Since they don't have rigid rules for liability in computer security (e.g. in IOT and all the data ex-filtration cases) or code correctness only means the court would resort to opinionated decision on a case by case basis and precedent would only mean they can, not that they should, if the situation isn't exactly the same. There is bound to be precedent for exactly this case, which would open an avenue for abuse by the bookies. I don't think it's clear at all.
- turtlecloud 8y ago
  Well if you tell the Wall Street bankers... it’s not their fault and they require a bailout. Yes they should honor it or else thy have 2 options. 1. Close business 2. Request a bailout. Someone more competent should take their place. Fanduel is not above the law.
kodablah 8y ago
Seems to me like they'll get in trouble for not consulting the Division and getting prior written approval before rescinding the wager, but not necessarily that the Division will side with the gambler. I am familiar, at least in Oklahoma, where gambling operations have famously been allowed to skirt on mistakes.
gojomo 8y ago
I wouldn't trust a surface reading of one section of the regulations, unless you're a lawyer with specific expertise in New Jersey gambling law and precedent. There could easily be other offsetting law, regulation, or precedent. There might have been a prior decision which effectively gave "written approval" to void future egregious odds/payout errors. There may have been "prior written approval" of the house rules allowing recision. Regulators & the industry have a converging interest in a predictable business, without "gotchas", and with precedents that protect against other potential larger future errors. I would bet even-money that Mr. Price, the bettor, is never paid the full $82,610, either as a private settlement or at the direction of any regulator or court.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  1. I am a lawyer, licensed in 4 states (among other bars) :) 2. I grew up in NJ and am quite familiar with the gambling regs (but i admit to not having paid attention in the past few years) 3. I checked with other NJ lawyers.
  - gojomo 8y ago
    I am not a lawyer. I grew up in NJ but I'm more familiar with the policies of Nevada gambling firms. But, I have a perhaps-unreasonable amount of confidence in my understanding of regulator-regulatee dynamics. I further think FanDuel competently understood their legal environment before making their statements defending the non-payment to the press. (If their experts knew they'd eventually have to pay anyway, why take the PR hit?) And finally, I believe that on general principles of fairness, such blatant errors should be voidable. So, would you like to bet me $20, even-money, that your "FanDuel is gonna lose this one" prediction comes to pass? Me, a rando non-lawyer armchair commenter, versus your many credentials, familiarity-with-the-gambling-regs, and confirming opinions from other NJ lawyers? You win if FanDuel ever pays this bettor the full $82,610 – whether due to public outcry or any action by relevant legal authorities. I win if the bettor accepts a settlement for less, such as the tokens-of-apology that FanDuel has already offered.
    - 8y ago

Arzh 8y ago

Good reply, I'm wondering they they will try to tie it to how slot machines handle errors ("All errors void play") which just payback the bet but don't payout.

DannyBee 8y ago
In most states the regulations covering slot machines explicitly cover error. one of the most interesting parts is I can't find any part of the wagering regulations that cover error here. It's entirely possible they should but as far as I could tell they currently do not
bsder 8y ago
Setting the odds incorrectly isn't considered to be an "error". If your slot machine is supposed to pay out 1000:1 and you set it for 1:1000, sucks to be you, but it isn't an "error". Actually: I apparently stand corrected. The situation generally gets investigated by the state board who works out the appropriate remedy.
nikanj 8y ago
Slot machines go through an absolutely grueling certification process. Interesting to see if FanDuel is willing to subject their software to it.

stochastic_monk 8y ago

I also wonder what they mean by mistake. I’m guessing these are set algorithmically; you can’t honestly label the times you lose money by trusting your code as mistakes while keeping money from the times it’s successful.

sandworm101 8y ago

But these are still contracts, subject to the basics of contract law. Contracts are not meant to be gotcha moments where one side leverages the mistakes of another. Look to the booking of flights. A small error here and there on price will be enforced. But a monumental error leveraged by people who would otherwise not fly will nullify the contract (ie hundreds of people suddenly booking first class travel London-Johannesburg because the website underpriced such tickets). So in this case, where the remarkable odds were spotted by someone who knew it was a probable error, and would not have otherwise made the bet except for the error, I think a court will nullify. What if it were billion-to-one odds? Should a company be destroyed because of a single numerical mistake? There is a line and I think this situation crosses it.

posterboy 8y ago
What if it were a 1% fudge above normal? That's frequent. Is it the liability of the pundit to check global markets? A billion to one odd would be unusual granted, but where is the cut off? Clearly this argument is not appropriate. Conversely, bookies do not have to take into account whether pundits are likely making a mistake. Betting schemes thrive on the appearance that the bookie made a mistake. Either way, the places I know limit possible wins (e.g. 1000$ for a bigger, casual one). And even if not, they should be allow to take bets only if they can back it up. That a pundit could not nullify the bet for the same reason is an edge the bank system abuses to no end. It's institutional. Since they don't have rigid rules for liability in computer security (e.g. in IOT and all the data ex-filtration cases) or code correctness only means the court would resort to opinionated decision on a case by case basis and precedent would only mean they can, not that they should, if the situation isn't exactly the same. There is bound to be precedent for exactly this case, which would open an avenue for abuse by the bookies. I don't think it's clear at all.
turtlecloud 8y ago
Well if you tell the Wall Street bankers... it’s not their fault and they require a bailout. Yes they should honor it or else thy have 2 options. 1. Close business 2. Request a bailout. Someone more competent should take their place. Fanduel is not above the law.

kodablah 8y ago

Seems to me like they'll get in trouble for not consulting the Division and getting prior written approval before rescinding the wager, but not necessarily that the Division will side with the gambler. I am familiar, at least in Oklahoma, where gambling operations have famously been allowed to skirt on mistakes.

gojomo 8y ago

I wouldn't trust a surface reading of one section of the regulations, unless you're a lawyer with specific expertise in New Jersey gambling law and precedent. There could easily be other offsetting law, regulation, or precedent. There might have been a prior decision which effectively gave "written approval" to void future egregious odds/payout errors. There may have been "prior written approval" of the house rules allowing recision. Regulators & the industry have a converging interest in a predictable business, without "gotchas", and with precedents that protect against other potential larger future errors. I would bet even-money that Mr. Price, the bettor, is never paid the full $82,610, either as a private settlement or at the direction of any regulator or court.

DannyBee 8y ago
1. I am a lawyer, licensed in 4 states (among other bars) :) 2. I grew up in NJ and am quite familiar with the gambling regs (but i admit to not having paid attention in the past few years) 3. I checked with other NJ lawyers.
- gojomo 8y ago
  I am not a lawyer. I grew up in NJ but I'm more familiar with the policies of Nevada gambling firms. But, I have a perhaps-unreasonable amount of confidence in my understanding of regulator-regulatee dynamics. I further think FanDuel competently understood their legal environment before making their statements defending the non-payment to the press. (If their experts knew they'd eventually have to pay anyway, why take the PR hit?) And finally, I believe that on general principles of fairness, such blatant errors should be voidable. So, would you like to bet me $20, even-money, that your "FanDuel is gonna lose this one" prediction comes to pass? Me, a rando non-lawyer armchair commenter, versus your many credentials, familiarity-with-the-gambling-regs, and confirming opinions from other NJ lawyers? You win if FanDuel ever pays this bettor the full $82,610 – whether due to public outcry or any action by relevant legal authorities. I win if the bettor accepts a settlement for less, such as the tokens-of-apology that FanDuel has already offered.
  - 8y ago