Daily Fantasy Sports Research Articles

Trifling and Gambling With Virtual Money

Author(s): Holden, John T. | Abstract: Gambling, in particular sports gambling, is one of the most pervasive illicit activities in the United States. In contrast to Europe and parts of Asia that have vast legal networks of both online and brick and mortar betting parlors, the United States has largely confined sports betting to the state of Nevada, while tolerating so-called daily fantasy sports in a number of additional states. Slightly less pervasive, though equally or perhaps more often associated with illegal activity, are virtual currencies. Indeed, the growth of the illegal gambling market is being partially fueled by virtual currencies. While bitcoin garners most of the media attention, often associated with volatile valuations or criminal activity, a variety of smaller scale virtual currencies have also emerged. The challenge for judges and an essential prerogative for lawmakers is to make sense of how to treat virtual currencies under antiquated statutes and interpretations of what constitutes money.Some of the high-profile cases involving bitcoin—such as United States v. Ulbricht, and theft from the Mt. GOX exchange leading to its collapse—have raised questions as to whether bitcoin is money, or even property, the loss of which is compensable. Smaller, narrowly used, in-game virtual currencies have also emerged. Their unique distinction from bitcoin and first generation virtual currencies is that they have value within games, but purportedly have no value external to the game per terms of service agreements offered by game makers. No fewer than seven decisions have been issued addressing these in-game currencies, finding that despite the existence of secondary markets allowing users to transfer accounts for fiat currencies, the terms of service agreements control in determining the in-game currencies to be valueless. These federal holdings create a major problem for law enforcement and prosecutors. By awarding prizes with zero-value currencies, virtual games, casinos and sportsbooks bypass compliance with most gambling statutes. This problem is exacerbated by secondary markets that use market-based pricing to establish values for accounts contradicting the game makers’ valuations. Skins gambling, a recently emerged ancillary feature of a popular video game, has already blossomed into a multi-billion-dollar industry that might be outside the reach of law enforcement, and almost no one has noticed.

Daily and season-long fantasy sports participation and gambling-related problems among a sample of college students at three universities

ABSTRACTTraditionally, fantasy sports have been played in season-long leagues, but recently daily fantasy sports (DFS) have emerged, allowing participants to play fantasy contests over shorter periods of time. Although participating in fantasy sports contests with entry fees or deposits could be considered a form of gambling, very few studies have examined associations between fantasy sport participation and gambling-related problems. Using a 2016 sample of college students (N = 941) at three institutions, this study examined associations between fantasy sports participation (season-long and DFS) and (1) gambling, (2) gambling frequency, and (3) endorsing DSM-5 gambling disorder (GD) criteria. The study found that engagement with fantasy sports and paying to play increased the likelihood of gambling and more frequent gambling. Respondents who paid an entry fee/deposit to play fantasy sports gambled more frequently than those who did not, and respondents who participated in DFS endorsed more DSM-5 GD criteria than those who did not. Because of the association found between DFS play and gambling-related problems in some participants, the study suggests that mental health professionals who treat clients with gambling problems be cognizant of DFS and that some clients might be experiencing problems with DFS.

Advertised Incentives for Participation in Daily Fantasy Sports Contests in 2015 and 2016: Legal Classification and Consumer Implications

During the summer of 2015, daily fantasy sports (DFS) advertising in the United States became ubiquitous, with DraftKings and FanDuel embarking on an aggressive advertising campaign. One year later, those commercials all but disappeared from television and radio. In the United States, DFS operators and the industry trade association have argued that fantasy games are legally distinct from prohibited forms of sports gambling; however, several state legislators have concluded differently. In this empirical examination, we examined the advertised incentives across the first two weeks of the National Football League (NFL) season in 2015 and 2016. In order to assess whether the arguments made by industry groups that DFS is distinct from gambling is conveyed in the messages being sent to consumers by the two major DFS companies, we conducted a qualitative directed content analysis. We observed that the 2015 commercials focused on the ease of play, and DFS players’ ability to win money; whereas the 2016 commercials placed a greater emphasis on intrinsic themes. The implications of this study are meaningful because they suggest that as the regulatory framework surrounding DFS in the United States has become more certain, the major DFS companies have made a change in their advertising messaging while not fundamentally altering their most played products.

Daily Fantasy Football and Self-Reported Problem Behavior in the United States.

Traditional, season-long fantasy sport participation has grown considerably since the late 1990s, and in an attempt to capitalize on this growing demand, daily fantasy sports (DFS) providers have created a new game where money changes hands instantly. This change has led some legal commentators and state agencies to believe the game is a form of Internet gambling similar to online poker, blackjack, and sports wagering, and thus, it requires increased regulation or even prohibition. Little is known, however, about the gambling behavior associated with DFS participation. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to examine problem gambling severity in conjunction with DFS participant motives, perceptions, and consumption behavior. Over 500 DFS participants were surveyed, and the results suggest DFS participants behave similarly with participants in other forms of gambling activities. In addition, the findings suggest additional consumer protections may be needed to prevent further problem behavior such as chasing.

Trifling and Gambling with Virtual Money

Gambling, in particular sports gambling, is one of the most pervasive illicit activities in the United States. In contrast to Europe and parts of Asia that have vast legal networks of both online and brick and mortar betting parlors, the United States has largely confined sports betting to the state of Nevada, while tolerating so-called daily fantasy sports in a number of additional states. Slightly less pervasive, though equally or perhaps more often associated with illegal activity, are virtual currencies. Indeed, the growth of the illegal gambling market is being partially fueled by virtual currencies. While bitcoin garners most of the media attention, often associated with volatile valuations or criminal activity, a variety of smaller scale virtual currencies have also emerged. The challenge for judges and an essential prerogative for lawmakers is to make sense of how to treat virtual currencies under antiquated statutes and interpretations of what constitutes money. Some of the high-profile cases involving bitcoin—such as United States v. Ulbricht, and theft from the Mt. GOX exchange leading to its collapse—have raised questions as to whether bitcoin is money, or even property, the loss of which is compensable. Smaller, narrowly used, in-game virtual currencies have also emerged. Their unique distinction from bitcoin and first generation virtual currencies is that they have value within games, but purportedly have no value external to the game per terms of service agreements offered by game makers. No fewer than seven decisions have been issued addressing these in-game currencies, finding that despite the existence of secondary markets allowing users to transfer accounts for fiat currencies, the terms of service agreements control in determining the in-game currencies to be valueless. These federal holdings create a major problem for law enforcement and prosecutors. By awarding prizes with zero-value currencies, virtual games, casinos and sportsbooks bypass compliance with most gambling statutes. This problem is exacerbated by secondary markets that use market-based pricing to establish values for accounts contradicting the game makers’ valuations. Skins gambling, a recently emerged ancillary feature of a popular video game, has already blossomed into a multi-billion-dollar industry that might be outside the reach of law enforcement, and almost no one has noticed.

Prepared Written Statement of John T. Holden & Ryan M. Rodenberg for the Massachusetts Special Legislative Commission on Online Gaming, Fantasy Sports Gaming and Daily Fantasy Sports

Online gaming has existed in some form for slightly more than 20 years. The growth and popularity of online gaming can be partially credited to three important events: 1) in 1995, Microgaming was the first to pioneer and disseminate online gaming software; 2) software was introduced that allowed for the secure transfer of funds over the internet; and 3) the acceptance of a wager online by InterCasino, which was based in Antigua. Shortly after the emergence of online gaming sites abroad, Congress began to express concern over Americans accessing virtual casinos and sportsbooks. Early congressional concerns centered on underage access, pervasiveness of illicit material, anonymity, and the integrity of online gambling operators. Many of these concerns persist today. These issues, in addition to concerns about the integrity surrounding real-world sporting events and video game competitions (i.e. esports), should be at the forefront of the minds of state and federal legislators when developing new gaming legislation. The rise of daily fantasy sports (“DFS”) and traditional fantasy sports has demonstrated that many Americans have an interest in some forms of sports gambling. Interest in fantasy sports is dwarfed by the popularity of other forms of betting, as evidenced by the estimated $10.4 billion wagered on single events like the NCAA Men’s Basketball tournament and $4.7 billion wagered on the 2017 Super Bowl. Americans are already betting on sports. Many are betting on sports through DFS contests, others are betting at Nevada sportsbooks, some are betting with neighborhood bookies, but the vast majority are betting online in a grey market. Efforts to stop or curb online sports gambling have failed. There is a need to develop a more effective and efficient plan to implement a regulatory system that protects customers, and operators. Within this statement we address four important considerations for the regulation of DFS and online gaming moving forward: 1) federal law; 2) state law; 3) virtual currencies; and 4) consumer protections.

The Future of Daily Fantasy Sports Industry and State-Operated Lotteries in the U.S.

Gaming Law Review and EconomicsVol. 21, No. 3 ArticlesThe Future of Daily Fantasy Sports Industry and State-Operated Lotteries in the U.S.Richard McGowanRichard McGowanSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Apr 2017https://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2017.2136AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View articleFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 21Issue 3Apr 2017 InformationCopyright 2017, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Richard McGowan.The Future of Daily Fantasy Sports Industry and State-Operated Lotteries in the U.S..Gaming Law Review and Economics.Apr 2017.272-277.http://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2017.2136Published in Volume: 21 Issue 3: April 1, 2017Keywordsfantasy sportslotteryrevenueregulationPDF download

Daily Fantasy Sports Congressional Hearing: A First-Hand Account

Daily Fantasy Sports Congressional Hearing: A First-Hand Account

Adjusting for scorekeeper bias in NBA box scores

Box score statistics in the National Basketball Association are used to measure and evaluate player performance. Some of these statistics are subjective in nature and since box score statistics are recorded by scorekeepers hired by the home team for each game, there exists potential for inconsistency and bias. These inconsistencies can have far reaching consequences, particularly with the rise in popularity of daily fantasy sports. Using box score data, we estimate models able to quantify both the bias and the generosity of each scorekeeper for two of the most subjective statistics: assists and blocks. We then use optical player tracking data for the 2014-2015 season to improve the assist model by including other contextual spatio-temporal variables such as time of possession, player locations, and distance traveled. From this model, we present results measuring the impact of the scorekeeper and of the other contextual variables on the probability of a pass being recorded as an assist. Results for adjusting season assist totals to remove scorekeeper influence are also presented.

Daily Fantasy, Tipping, and Wire Fraud

Gaming Law Review and EconomicsVol. 21, No. 1 ArticlesDaily Fantasy, Tipping, and Wire FraudJohn T. Holden, Will F. Green, and Ryan M. RodenbergJohn T. HoldenSearch for more papers by this author, Will F. GreenSearch for more papers by this author, and Ryan M. RodenbergSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Feb 2017https://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2017.2114AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View articleFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byAdvertised Incentives for Participation in Daily Fantasy Sports Contests in 2015 and 2016: Legal Classification and Consumer ImplicationsThe Entertainment and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 15 Volume 21Issue 1Feb 2017 InformationCopyright 2017, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:John T. Holden, Will F. Green, and Ryan M. Rodenberg.Daily Fantasy, Tipping, and Wire Fraud.Gaming Law Review and Economics.Feb 2017.8-17.http://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2017.2114Published in Volume: 21 Issue 1: February 1, 2017Keywordsinside informationconsumer protectionfantasyfraudPDF download

Uber, Dominos, and the Shawshank Redemption: The Inevitable Legalization of Daily Fantasy Sports

Uber, Dominos, and the Shawshank Redemption: The Inevitable Legalization of Daily Fantasy Sports

Understanding the Relationship Between Sports-Relevant Gambling and Being At-Risk for a Gambling Problem Among American Adolescents.

Fantasy sports is a growing industry with a reported 56.8 million individuals participating in the United States and Canada alone in 2015. Whereas this activity has attracted considerable public attention, little research has examined its impact on adolescents in spite of their high rates of gambling. The current study examined the relationship between regular participation (more than once a month) in sport-relevant gambling activities among adolescents and those identified as being at-risk for a gambling problem. Questionnaire responses were collected from high school students (N=6818; 49% male) in Wood County, Ohio, United States. Statistical analyses revealed that regular involvement in sports betting, fantasy sports betting, and daily fantasy sports betting among adolescents was associated with a higher risk of gambling problems. Further, although males participate more frequently in these activities, females who participate have a stronger likelihood of being at-risk. Students aged 16-19years old are at a higher risk for developing a gambling problem compared to younger adolescents when regularly engaging in sports-related gambling. Moreover, regularly participating in daily fantasy sports is the strongest predictor of at-risk gambling behavior in 13-15year old students. A hierarchical logistic regression supports that controlling for gender and age, all forms of sport-relevant gambling activities are significant predictors of at-risk gambling. This study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of sports betting and fantasy sports on adolescents and establishes an initial step for future studies to further investigate these relationships.

Fantasy Sports: Skill, Gambling, or Are These Irrelevant Issues?

The emergence of daily fantasy sports has generated significant debate as to whether it constitutes gambling. Under current US law, States variably determine the legality of daily fantasy sports on the basis of it being a skill-based competition (legal) or a form of gambling where chance plays a major role (illegal). Accordingly, inconsistent State legislations are partly accounted for by differences in the degree to which legislators believe the activity is a game of skill or luck. In the absence of clear guidelines differentiating the importance of skill and luck, operators have been free in some States to operate without regulatory consumer protection guidelines. Regardless of where it fits on the skill/chance continuum, the activity contains structural elements promoting excessive use exposing players to harm. Consequently, it is argued that endeavors to define daily fantasy sports as skill-based or gambling are misguided. The degree of harm caused by excessive daily fantasy sports should be established and in response, harm minimization legislation strategies implemented.

Keynote Address: A Sure Bet? The Legal Status of Daily Fantasy Sports

Keynote Address: A Sure Bet? The Legal Status of Daily Fantasy Sports

Snapshot of Daily Fantasy Sports Fighting for Its Life

Gaming Law Review and EconomicsVol. 20, No. 5 Gambling and the Law®Snapshot of Daily Fantasy Sports Fighting for Its LifeI. Nelson RoseI. Nelson RoseSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:21 Jun 2016https://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2016.2052AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 20Issue 5Jun 2016 InformationCopyright 2016, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:I. Nelson Rose.Snapshot of Daily Fantasy Sports Fighting for Its Life.Gaming Law Review and Economics.Jun 2016.375-377.http://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2016.2052Published in Volume: 20 Issue 5: June 21, 2016PDF download

The Ins and Outs of Fantasy Sports: Daily Fantasy Sports, Gambling or Not?

Gaming Law Review and EconomicsVol. 20, No. 4 ArticlesThe Ins and Outs of Fantasy Sports: Daily Fantasy Sports, Gambling or Not?Ron SanchezRon SanchezSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:18 May 2016https://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2016.2044AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byEvidence of Skill and Strategy in Daily Fantasy Basketball27 March 2018 | Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3 Volume 20Issue 4May 2016 InformationCopyright 2016, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Ron Sanchez.The Ins and Outs of Fantasy Sports: Daily Fantasy Sports, Gambling or Not?.Gaming Law Review and Economics.May 2016.327-338.http://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2016.2044Published in Volume: 20 Issue 4: May 18, 2016PDF download

Daily Fantasy Sports & Internet Poker Winning Battles, But Losing War

Daily Fantasy Sports & Internet Poker Winning Battles, But Losing War

In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation; In re: DraftKings, Inc., Fantasy Sports Litigation; In re: Fanduel, Inc., Fantasy Sports LitigationCase No. MDL No. 2677, 2678, and 2679; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13292 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, February 4, 2016)

Gaming Law Review and EconomicsVol. 20, No. 4 CasesIn re: Daily Fantasy Sports Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation; In re: DraftKings, Inc., Fantasy Sports Litigation; In re: Fanduel, Inc., Fantasy Sports LitigationCase No. MDL No. 2677, 2678, and 2679; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13292 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, February 4, 2016)Published Online:18 May 2016https://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2016.20416AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byHow to Play Fantasy Sports Strategically (and Win)SSRN Electronic JournalThe Independent Board as ShieldSSRN Electronic JournalAccounting Choices and the Legal Environment: The Impact of the Ex Post Loss RuleSSRN Electronic JournalThe Imitation Game: Structural Asymmetry in Multidistrict LitigationSSRN Electronic JournalCommon Law CopyrightSSRN Electronic Journal, Vol. 128After Halliburton: Event Studies and Their Role in Federal Securities Fraud LitigationSSRN Electronic JournalComparative Corporate Law: Look No FurtherSSRN Electronic JournalHigh Prices in the US for Life Saving Drugs: Collective Bargaining Through Tort Law?SSRN Electronic JournalLiability of the Executive Body of a Joint-Stock Company for Damages Caused to the Company (((((((((((((((( )SSRN Electronic JournalCongressional Testimony on H.R. 2533: 'The Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Venue Reform Act of 2011'SSRN Electronic JournalEstimating Financial Fraud Damages with Response CoefficientsSSRN Electronic JournalOf Myths and Evidence: An Analysis of 40 U.S. Cases for Countries Considering a Private Right of Action for Competition Law ViolationsSSRN Electronic JournalAntitrust Policy and Vertical RestraintsSSRN Electronic JournalBankruptcy Law and Inefficient EntitlementsSSRN Electronic JournalShareholder Litigation Under Indeterminate Corporate LawSSRN Electronic JournalPrivacy Wrongs in Search of RemediesSSRN Electronic JournalHaste Makes Waste: Congress and the Common Law in CyberspaceSSRN Electronic Journal Volume 20Issue 4May 2016 InformationCopyright 2016, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation; In re: DraftKings, Inc., Fantasy Sports Litigation; In re: Fanduel, Inc., Fantasy Sports LitigationCase No. MDL No. 2677, 2678, and 2679; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13292 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, February 4, 2016).Gaming Law Review and Economics.May 2016.359-362.http://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2016.20416Published in Volume: 20 Issue 4: May 18, 2016PDF download

Fantasy Gaming on Steroids? Contrasting Fantasy Sport Participation by Daily Fantasy Sport Participation

The fantasy sport industry has grown rapidly in the past decade, now boasting 56 million participants in North America alone. More recently, the ascent of fantasy sport appears directly attributable to the rise of new websites offering daily/weekly fantasy games. This study surveys 438 fantasy participants—some who play traditional fantasy sports and others who participate in daily fantasy sports along with traditional forms of fantasy offerings. Results reveal that motivations for play do not differ between traditional and daily participants, yet the two sets of respondents differed in terms of media consumption, economic commitment, and perceptions of games being skill versus chance based. Ramifications are offered not only based on the differences in financial investment but also regarding the seeming downturn in motivations for traditional fantasy sport participation.

Turning Fantasy into Regulatory Reality: A Comparative Approach to Daily Fantasy Sports Through Contracts

FanDuel and DraftKings have become the two biggest contenders in the fast-growing daily fantasy sports industry. Heavy hitters in the sports world, like Fox Sports and NBC, have also jumped onto the daily fantasy sports bandwagon. But in New York, these websites have been made illegal. Other states are considering classifying daily fantasy sports as illegal gambling. The question of what now to do with daily fantasy sports has just been opened up, but the answer is not simple. It is undesirable to suddenly declare a multibillion-dollar industry illegal without qualification, but there are currently no regulations limiting fantasy sports providers. Analogous regulatory systems found in securities exchange regulations may be the key. Securities trading and “traditional” sports gambling have long been analogized and compared, and it is possible to fit fantasy football into this comparison between sports betting and securities exchanges. This note argues that a broader look at the structure of the provider itself – how the provider receives and disseminates information, how the provider deals between participants, what connections the provider has to the relevant industry – may provide a more useful framework to configure a solution to the biggest problems currently effecting fantasy sports.