Case: 3:25-cv-00698-wmc Document #: 56-1 Filed: 01/06/26 Page 10 of 13
Further, this principle is expressed in IGRA. Where class III gaming is considered to occur depends on “the stuff involved in playing class III games.” Bay Mills , 572 U.S. at 792. Here, the activity is sports betting, which necessarily requires at least two parties. As the bettor’s activity is essential to the gaming, the gaming occurs at least where the bettor is physically located. 7 See, e.g. , Iipay Nation , 898 F.3d at 967 (holding that, where tribe offers internet gaming allowing bets to be placed from outside of Indian lands “at least some of the ‘gaming activity’ … does not occur on Indian lands”); S. Ute Indian Tribe v. Polis , no. 1:24-cv-01886, slip op. at 7-8 (D. Colo. Oct. 23, 2025) (same). Consistent with the right of tribes to regulate gaming occurring on their lands, see 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5), IGRA’s implementing regulations also require the consent of any tribe on whose lands the bettor is located regarding allocations of jurisdiction over internet gaming transactions, see 25 C.F.R. § 293.26(c). Some cases have held that tribal jurisdiction does not apply where tribes conduct online business with nonmembers. However, those cases are distinguishable because they analyze whether tribal jurisdiction is justified, not the location of gaming under IGRA. See Jackson v. Payday Fin., LLC , 764 F.3d 765, 782 (7th Cir. 2014); Stifel v. Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians , 807 F.3d 184, 207–08 (7th Cir. 2015); Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Fin. Servs. , 769 F.3d 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2014). Moreover, even accepting them as applicable, those cases still support a finding that Defendants' gaming activity here occurs on Indian lands because they indicate that online commercial activity occurs where 7 It is, of course, possible for online wagers to be treated as occurring somewhere other than the player’s physical location, but such treatment requires statutory authorization. See, e.g. , 25 C.F.R. § 293.26; West Flagler Assocs., Ltd. v. Haaland , 71 F.4th 1059, 1061–62, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2023), cert. denied , 144 S. Ct. 2671 (2024) (holding that IGRA allows states and tribes to “allocate jurisdiction” over the regulation of internet gaming conducted by a tribe throughout the state, including on its Indian lands). Nothing here provides such deeming authority for Defendants’ sports bets.
10
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs