Go Bananas

How to play Go Bananas

The petition poses the question of whether the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was enacted in 2010 in the aftermath of the Great Recession, “preempted states from regulating sports bets that occur within their jurisdictions if those bets are offered on markets registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission”. Prediction markets have argued that their event contracts are financial derivatives regulated by the CFTC whereas many states contend that they are simply sports bets by another name.

There is no guarantee the Supreme Court will hear the case but a separate appeals court ruling from 28 August bolsters its chances. In that case, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously in favour of the state of Nevada, creating a circuit court split, which is a hallmark of many Supreme Court cases.

“We’re calling on the Supreme Court to resolve this issue and recognise that Congress did not silently make the sports-betting industry immune from state law,” Davenport said in a statement.

About Go Bananas

If free-to-play builds familiarity, Splash Tech’s jackpot engine is intended to provide a common thread across an operator’s offering, even when the games themselves come from dozens of competing studios.

“A jackpot engine is a rare product in that you can brand that engine and it will sit across all of your content,” Wilson says. “As an operator, you might have 50 different game suppliers. On every single game that you’re serving, you can show a branded jackpot.”

That is the gap Splash Tech solves: many operators already have strong game libraries, and some have proprietary content, but they lack a flexible jackpot layer that can sit across the full offering without requiring them to build and operate their own engine.

About Go Bananas

Tabcorp Holdings Limited, one of Australia’s largest wagering and media companies was also fined more than AU$2.7 million earlier this year. ACMA clarified that Tabcorp had violated telemarketing and spam regulations over a 16-month period. 

It had sent over 217,000 marketing emails and SMS messages within a 16-day window to customers who had explicitly unsubscribed. ACMA regarded the volume and timing of these messages as significant enough to warrant enforcement action. 

In response to the penalties, Dabble Sports has agreed to a two-year court-enforceable undertaking. It has obliged the company to commission an independent review of its compliance systems. Dabble must develop a board-approved plan to implement these changes with appropriate resources.