IAGA SUMMIT BELFAST FUTURE OF US IGAMING IGT PLAYDIGITAL & GEOCOMPLY
Sam Basile Vice President of Business Development & Licensing, GeoComply
“Speed to market should never substitute for regulatory best practices. Some agencies are better equipped and experienced to move quickly. In other cases, a regulator may need to rely on the expertise of external consultants or the best practices of another state
regulator. Public sessions with market participants (operators and suppliers) are also
encouraged as it fosters clear communication, guidance, and expectations before the launch.”
Sam Basile
Regarding not reinventing the wheel: the industry is fortunate to have been operating for over two decades in European jurisdictions and the UK, and for a number of years now within North America. Regulators considering legalization of iGaming can fortunately learn from these peers and their experiences. Licensing too is an area where we can reduce duplicative work for the participants and the regulator. Some companies entering new gaming segments have been around for a long time and are already well known. In all the pressure to open up a new jurisdiction, re- licensing an existing company should rely on existing experience with the licensee in the jurisdiction. It doesn’t make sense to burden everyone with repetitive work. Just because the gaming segment is different doesn't make the applicant different.
Sam Basile: Te good news is that many of the compliance functions, such as age verification and geolocation, are identical for sports betting and iGaming. Regulators don’t need to reinvent the wheel regarding regulation, but they still need to ensure that iGaming platforms and their suppliers are properly vetted and that their technologies are tested to the highest standards. We’ve also found that when states provide a universal market launch date, the industry has a
P84 WIRE / PULSE / INSIGHT / REPORTS
clear roadmap to get their systems compliant and tested. While not everyone will be ready to launch on day one, it is still good to set a goal for operators and suppliers to work toward.
Is further regulation required to keep up with continually evolving technologies in iGaming?
Steve Kastner: I would add a word to the question: “is further regulation review required.” And I would say “yes.” New and evolving technologies may render some regulations unnecessary, while simultaneously creating new concerns. It’s important to look at existing regulations, understand the intent, and then assess if that’s still relevant—or if it may be addressed in another, more contemporary manner. Most recently, Nevada has been highly visible in such an endeavor. In the past, other jurisdictions such as Ontario and New Jersey to name a few, have similarly conducted major reviews and revisions of their requirements to modernize their regulations.
Evolving technologies also drive changes beyond technical standards. Licensing and reporting frameworks should also be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they’re relevant and appropriate. Collectively, the industry should be asking if there’s a better way to do things, and whether the concern is still valid. Here too is an opportunity for jurisdictions to learn from each other, particularly those that are actively consulting with industry through forums and roundtables.
Regulators in emerging markets are often under some form of pressure; be it limited resources, potential gaps in knowledge, strict deadlines for launch, or a combination thereof. Is this a limiting factor in gaming’s growth in the US?
Sam Basile: Speed to market should never substitute for regulatory best practices. Some agencies are better equipped and experienced to move quickly. In other cases, a regulator may need to rely on the expertise of external consultants or the best practices of another state regulator. Public sessions with market participants (operators and suppliers) are also encouraged as it fosters clear communication, guidance, and expectations before the launch. To ensure success, every roll-out should include these critical steps: 1) approval of technical standards, 2) review and licensing of operators and suppliers (temporary or permanent), and 3) testing and ITL certification to ensure compliance and public safety.
Steve Kastner: In any new jurisdiction or expansion within a jurisdiction, most, if not all, of the above come into play. Regarding resources, it’s important that regulatory agencies are appropriately funded and expand in relation to their newfound responsibilities. What seems to have worked the best is to identify the minimum requirements to get the jurisdiction operating, while allowing for further refinements and additions in time.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124
