Case: 3:25-cv-00698-wmc Document #: 56-1 Filed: 01/06/26 Page 9 of 13
jurisdictional principles. See, e.g. , Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. , 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1123-27 (W.D. Pa. 1997). Nor does the fact that Defendants’ servers are physically located outside of Indian lands mean that their conduct does not occur on Indian lands. Interjurisdictional gaming using telecommunications has been regulated for over a hundred years and a firm principle has emerged: the gaming occurs at least at the location where the bettor is at the time the bet is placed, unless the relevant laws provide otherwise. See Ames v. Kirby , 59 A. 558, 559 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1904); State v. Maloney , 39 So. 539, 545 (La. 1905); State v. Rose , 105 P. 82, 85-86 (Mont. 1909). This principle is also present in federal law, where federal gaming statutes specify that interjurisdictional gaming is only legal where it is legal in both the origin and destination jurisdictions. See, e.g. , 18 U.S.C. § 184(a)–(b); 15 U.S.C. § 3002(3). For example, the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”) clarifies that transactions involving bets that are illegal “in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made ” are prohibited when made via the internet. 31 U.S.C. § 5362(10)(A) (emphasis added). 6 6 Defendants correctly acknowledge that UIGEA provides an exception to its definition of “bet or wager” for transactions occurring on designated contract market (“DCM”) exchanges, such as Kalshi. 31 U.S.C. § 5362(1)(E)(ii). However, contrary to what Defendants argue, UIGEA does not supersede IGRA as it pertains to their sports-betting activity, nor does this same exception apply to IGRA. It is therefore inapposite to the determination of where a bet or wager occurs for purposes of IGRA. Moreover, UIGEA does not displace IGRA’s requirements for class III gaming conducted on Indian lands. UIGEA is a non-substantive, payment-processing law that Congress narrowly tailored to prohibit using certain kinds of financial transactions to fund gaming that is already unlawful—it neither creates any substantive prohibitions for gaming itself nor supersedes other gaming laws. See 31 U.S.C. § 5361(b) (directing that UIGEA should not “be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or … Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or regulating gambling within the United States.”); California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel , 898 F.3d 960, 965 (9th Cir. 2018) (“In effect, the UIGEA prevents using the internet to circumvent existing state and federal gambling laws, but it does not create any additional substantive prohibitions.”).
9
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs