Abstract
It's hard to avoid the topic of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), which is why I'll start this column with some thoughts on the planned reopening of casinos before providing a quick summary of the excellent issue you have in your hands.
Despite efforts to flatten the curve, COVID-19 is still rampaging across the globe. Weeks, and in some cases months, of lockdowns and stay-at-home recommendations have taken a toll on citizens and corporations, and everyone is starting to get antsy. That's led to the conversation pivoting to reopening businesses and restarting the economy.
Casinos present a unique challenge.
The sheer volume of visitors alone makes them a potential transmission hotspot. Add to that the use of casino chips and the passing back and forth of money from staff to the customer, high-traffic public spaces, and the entertainment areas and amenities they offer, from pools to nightclubs to spas to restaurants to theaters.
At the same time, casinos are often among the largest employers in any given area, not to mention that states heavily rely on gambling tax revenue, which explains the seeming rush to reopen these properties. But how and when to loosen restrictions on retail shops, entertainment venues, and the gaming floor is a hotly debated topic.
Our knowledge and understanding of the virus are still minimal and seem to change by the day. The current plan calls for a phased reopening, allowing businesses to quickly turn off the spigot if the pipe is found to have too many leaks. This slow reopening seems well-intended but could do more harm than good.
Macau is months ahead of the U.S. in terms of dealing with COVID-19, and despite easing restrictions, visitors aren't in a rush to return. In a recent regulatory filing, Wynn Resorts elucidated this point, noting that it was losing more money at its two open casinos in Macau than it was at its three shuttered casinos in the U.S.
Bottom line: it will likely cost more to operate a casino that is partially open than a closed casino. And that puts many casinos in the U.S. on shaky financial footing. Yes, opening means a return of some jobs and commerce, but at the same time, it could put those jobs on the endangered species list, not to mention that it could also lead to an outbreak of COVID-19.
These are the challenges states and casinos are faced with, but at the end of the day, it might not matter how risk-averse they are. As Dr. Anthony Fauci has said many times, the virus will set the timeline.
Setting COVID-19 aside for a moment, the current issue of Gaming Law Review has been a pleasure to put together.
This issue contains three excellent articles.
The first is titled A Case for Legalizing Poker in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: An International Perspective on Gambling and Betting Laws, by Amogh Mittal and Sidheswar Sahoo.
The second is an in-depth look at the history of casino gambling in the Caribbean by Gaming Law Review editorial board member Robert M. Jarvis and coauthor Jane E. Cross.
The third is a commentary by former California and Bermuda regulator Richard Schuetz, titled A Monopoly Supplier of Regulation: The U.S. Gambling Model.
Rounding out this issue are two cases. The first is Christopher Leong v. Crown NJ Gaming Inc. d/b/a DraftKings and Crown Gaming Inc., a class-action lawsuit brought against DraftKings that stems from a sports betting contest the company ran in New Jersey.
The second is an update on the ongoing case of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), et al., v. New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association, Inc. This case stems from a lawsuit filed by the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association claiming damages from the NCAA's efforts to block sports betting legalization in New Jersey.