ortable relying on more formally. I'm just trying to get justice done. Karen, maybe we can have legal take a look. I'm trying to think where that clarification would be in the documentation that we've had already. So, I'm legal in this major division could maybe want to get what the commissioners get us asking for. We can certainly do that between between now and Monday on our end as well. Thank you. So just Madam Chair, just for the sake of having this particular conversation, I'm going to stop screen sharing if that's okay. Unless. Could I just read it real quick? Sorry, go ahead. Yes, sorry. Don't mean to hide it. I think it's good to be sharing and I don't know if anyone's seeing it. There would be comments on it. What we want to avoid is again, unforeseen consequences. So, I think to my fellow commissioners points to the next. So I'll follow up on that. Is the net, should it be gross or net weight during revenue or is it just net? I think again, this language had to do with particular language in 234 that was worded this way. But I think again, I think it's a policy choice whether the prohibitions scope is farther. I think Commissioner O'Brien, what you're suggesting as or what you're asking about really is would suggest that a type of agreement that might be prohibited is one where, for instance, all vendors sort of regardless, I think using the first part of the language that you were talking about or taking it out, earned from users, that would make it so that's possible to enter to agreement that says, if an operator hits a certain target, everybody who does this marketing gets X for it. Whether they then share net or gross revenue, I think it's sort of the same issue on that. Okay, I'm all set. Nina, if everybody else is all set. Thank you. Thank you and I appreciate being relieved of my momentary panic of having to screen share. It always worries me what else is might pop off that I can't control. So anyway, so I would suggest then unless there's any objections, we insert this language in as in for number three and have the further discussion of whether this language or a further modification or no language at all is appropriate. Is that the best way to move forward between here and the next meeting? I have a couple of questions, Madam Chair. Next question. And we're rehashing the questions that I'm asking. Can you refresh my memory, somebody what other jurisdictions do in regards to third party? Nina, you want to give that history, where it's from originally? Sure, yeah, at least two other states in my memory prohibited altogether. It's Connecticut, Illinois, Bendis altogether and Connecticut, I think is especially broad. I don't recall that any other jurisdiction has sort of more nuanced piece to this, although I think in the conversations on the enhanced licensing, there are a couple of jurisdictions that had sort of captured it that way as well. And I don't recall off the top of my head there was New Jersey or others, but I think there was a couple that had addressed it that way. And New York just had EPA red share ban. One of the last times that we were discussing it. Yeah, they adopted the day before we kind of just look when we made our stand for date. And I think Commissioner Maynard, Connecticut, you want to point out? There's scuttlebutt that Connecticut may be going the other way at the same time. Well, according to some of the folks on our team. So I have a threshold question, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure I'm understanding the order of operations correctly. And I'm not subject, I'm not a part of all the teams conversations with the AG's office and the AG's teams and back and forth. I want to make sure that the version of the red light version we got that there was, I just mean, I'm trying to do the timeline in my head. Did it take into account the conversation we had about how we were going to supplant this issue in the short term during this waiver? Does it anticipate that we had a conversation about the Durant letter? Does it anticipate that we had a conversation about some of the issues that were brought up around push and pull advertising? If the answer is yes, great, right? Like that helps me when I'm looking through the comments. I just want to make sure that it wasn't just a comment on the black and white letter of the reg, not taking into account some of the conversations we had in meetings. As a reminder, and then everybody else can fill in. And Commissioner Hill, I probably will revisit the round table because it was so informative. But my understanding, I think it's correct if I'm wrong, but we did receive notice from the Attorney General's office that they would be providing comments after we conducted that round table and after we allowed for the waiver. That's the right language. I think that's the timeline. We heard from First Assistant Attorney General not more that they would be submitting comments. We got the letter. And then of course, we got the red line yesterday. The red line version allowed, gave us specific language, which we are super appreciative of. Is that right? Carrie, Caitlin, Nina, is that your memory too? I believe so, Madam Chair. I have in front of the letter, the first letter from the Attorney General's office was March 7th. I'm trying to look back at the different calendar entries to remember when the waiver happened. But these things were very close in time, but I think the order you described is about right. Yeah, Karen, I don't know if you can tell from your calendar. Sorry to put this on you, but the round table, last round table on third parties, and then Caitlin or Carrie, if you can figure out when we actually, because I could be completely wrong. Yeah, I'll look for the date of the round table now. But I do think it was very close in time. Every March 27th. And we had, as you remember, we had a sense of representation from the, for parties, the broadcasting, we had somebody from Nessan, and of course we had, who was very helpful on the R&G front. The round table, as was just stated, was on the 27th, the vote for the waiver was the next day on the 28th. So that would have all happened before we received the initial letter from the EG's office. Yeah, yeah. With that said, we have a lot of meetings and we've had extensive roundtables and input, Commissioner Maynard, so I'm not sure if they had the chance to see the roundtables, you know, view it, but... Well, and I didn't know if it was captured in the actual regulation, right? Or captured anywhere where you could see it visibly, right? That's what I'm really getting at is, if I were to go to the website or go somewhere, did I have seen what the decision we made in black and white that day? That's kind of what I'm getting at. And I think that's where I was struggling today. There's no notation of our waiver here. So I think we're, you're thinking from the EG's point of view and I'm thinking from even a reminder for ourselves and the public. But that's the way this should be. The document is comprised of the way it should be, but you're absolutely right that, but it would have been in, it would have been somewhere, right? I guess on our recording. Right, right. And I think based on the way that they come, so the waiver sort of took out that paragraph in full for a period of time, right? And so what the AG was looking at was the reg that had that paragraph. And so then if in their red line, they did not take it out, I think we can assume that they would prefer to keep it in, would be how I would read their comments and red lines. But Commissioner Maynard, you're thinking. I'm thinking that maybe with the additional information of the conversations we had, they would potentially view this differently or may see it. I don't know. That's what I mean. I'm trying to hash out. I just don't want to make a decision today. Just, I want to get this on the record without making sure that we really digest what the AG sent over. I really respect their view on this and how they're thinking. I just want to make sure that I understand exactly where we are on this. I mean, that's kind of where I'm coming from. Can I add a clarification, Commissioner Maynard? So, for instance, you're thinking too, they may not know that we thought about like the elevated licensure process that New Jersey has adopted with respect to the revenue sharing and may not understand the implications of the push-pull discussion that we had so extensively around the CPA or they may fully and still want that position. All right. So, Madam Chair, if it's helpful on the timeline, I certainly, I don't know if I could answer what everything about what the AG knew or didn't know, et cetera. Their March 7th letter just to be clear about what I think is at least reflected in that letter, they ended a section on various advertising practices, saying, importantly, we know these issues would become even more problematic should the commission back away. It's current very sound prohibition on commission-based payments of third market vendors. And that's where they cite to this section of 256. So, that's, you know, clear avenue to keep it in. They also say we understand certain vendors are asking for that prohibition to be lifted, which the commission is considering on an interim basis with a footnote siding to a Statehouse News Service article from February 28th. So, they were certainly aware you were in the process of discussing it and that some of the operators and vendors were asking for it to be removed. However, I acknowledge that doesn't mean that they had the benefit of all of the information you received during those two days. That was really a perfect question about this. Yeah, I mean, that would be consistent with my understanding if I had conversations with them in terms of some of this that came right before the letter. I'd be shocked if they changed their position based on the discussions that we had had. But I mean, I'm with you, Commissioner Maynard, in terms of I wanna be able to digest all the comments. These came in as I was in meetings all yesterday. So, while I looked at them closely and I had had that conversation with Kerry, I was checking the timing on this, knowing that we could go into next week because to your point, I wanna give everybody's comments their due. So, I wanna be able to digest all of this and then have this conversation and form what we do early next week. I agree, Commissioner Maynard. And kind of to that point that Mina just raised, we didn't lift it all together, right? Like that's the thing is that we didn't do exactly what was contemplated in the letter. It sounds like, but at the same time, if they fully, I don't know. I just don't know if they have every piece of information and I would like to know that. That's a piece of, so we're talking about things we need. I would like to know if they're aware of the heightened, New Jersey style, licensure and if that changes their opinion any or if it was factored in to begin with with their comments. And if it is, that definitely weighs on me. All right. And we have time to get that clarification, you know, to your point before we vote next week. So if I could just go back to Commissioner Hill, you asked the right question. Is this the time for the discussion? I think we've had some discussion but I don't think we're gonna dispose of it. What do you think? No, I'm with my two fellow commissioners. We need a little bit more information than we have today and get some of these questions answered before next, well, I assume next Monday, possibly beyond. Chris, just to have anything you wanna add or should we move on from this provision at this point? I have anything else to add. I do want to clarify for the commission or understand rather why there is this assumption that revenue share is more detrimental to the market than CPA. And I don't think that that's been fully flushed out yet. I know that there was mentioned last meeting that it's not clear what problem we're trying to address. But so as a component of that initial question, again, I would like to understand why there is the perception that the revenue share is more detrimental given that the way I think we were on the impression initially, those are, I just realized that they actually don't. I mean, I can tell you what my recollection of the roundtables in the discussion with Brianna Mark is, which is that there is some evidence out there that the CPA model lowers the push marketing and they advertising, which is the benefit, which is I think what we're all looking to do is to minimize that push general overload. There, that cannot be said of the rev share models. And then above and beyond that, I just inherently am suspect of something where your profit hinges on somebody else's the propensity and the depth and level of their participation in the market. And so I think it then perpetuates getting someone to gamble more. That's sort of inherent in the rev share model. So the most critical to me in the vote that I made in allowing the waiver in my vote, saying yes to the waiver on the CPA was there seemed to be affirmative evidence that CPA agreements did have a positive impact in terms of the push pull dynamic that we were looking for and that could not be said of the rev share model. And I have a different recollection of that same conversation, unfortunately. And I don't know how we reconcile that. I think that it might make sense to pose direct questions actually to, select group of folks in the industry so that we can get that formal clarification. I just would hate to make a decision based on a misunderstanding of the way the agreements actually work. I think that we can, we've gotten a lot of feedback. We can move this to one day. I think we can review our notes in our round table discussion. I know that I noted on the record that I was concerned that any decision we make might impact smaller operators and minority owned operators. And I was concerned about that. On the other hand, I understood from some of the work and research I had done that perhaps the New Jersey model reflected a best practice to elevate that particular compensation model where they were rather than being registrants, they would be vendors. And that seemed to be acceptable to many of the members of the round table. But that's my recollection of how I came to thinking. But I was concerned and I remain concerned that when we do elevate our licensure that does could create an additional barrier making it harder for those that are new to the market. But if I recall correctly, that seemed to be still an acceptable, despite that it's acceptable to those that's around to you. That's my recollection. But I have that still in my mind. So maybe we should all go back, look at our notes and get more questions answered and then come back on Monday on this petition. Does that make sense? Thanks, Commissioner Hill, I appreciate it. Anything else we want to add? Or to Commissioner Steyer's point, one, if there's something we can't get on our own, something that we need the legal team or the sports wagering division to get for us. Commissioner O'Brien, are you leaning in? Well, so particularly on the CPA rev share push poll issue, I am having conversations with, and I always forget her last name, Brienne, who participated in the round table. Also, that's where I distinctly remember that, her corroboration of the impact of the CPA versus the rev share. Anything further, commissioners? So we've got some homework to do on that one, Nina. So, and I think also just really reviewing all the comments that come in and including of course, the AG's office's comments that came yesterday. So thank you. Sarah, on other point of clarification, I think we all need. I don't know where I saw this comment, but there was some concern that the third parties provide advice on prospective wagers. I don't, I think it was in the 75-page chart somewhere in there that we reviewed. And I think it would be helpful to get clarity on that question as to whether or not third party marketing affiliates actually do engage in that conduct. Nina? Sure. So we, that was part of the attorney general's comments, commissioner Skinner, as one of the rationales for, in the March 7th letter, just to be clear, not in this most recent letter, for keeping the language. I alluded to this a little bit earlier, but there's other language in these regulations. It's at, I don't have it exactly in front of me. It's in the 250604 section, I believe, that would restrict any vendor or registrant from directing or suggesting a particular bet. And so there is already some protection on that, regardless of whether it's addressed up here. With respect to the factual question, do these third party entities engage in that behavior? I think that's something we can certainly, look back to the notes and the testimony at the roundtable or the information at the roundtable about, but there is at least another avenue for the commission to ensure if that's a concern that it's properly regulated. I think it would help just to clarify, notwithstanding the language prohibiting it outright, to the extent that that is the basis in part for the prohibition on those kinds of agreements. Okay, if we are done with that section, again, when we come back on Monday, in addition to changes to three, we might, there's a small edit from the AG on 250601. They'll probably add in, I apologize, we went right over it. It's simply making clear that's, when we're talking about third parties acting on behalf of an operator, they just had some sort of more inclusive language on how they might be acting. We can review that as well on Monday with sort of a benefit of time on that. I think the next issue that was raised in the comments, it actually pops up in a few places as well, but starts in the application. And Christina Marshall, my partner, is going to take that one and probably go back and forth a little. Yes, thank you, everybody. Hopefully this will not take quite as long as the revenue sharing piece. So this next comment is from Caesars. This is not reflected in the red line that is in your packet because we don't recommend accepting an edit here, but Caesars has requested that the regulations not apply to national advertising and only to advertising in Massachusetts. We disagree. The fact that an ad might be shown in other states doesn't remove the commission's jurisdiction to regulate it in the same way as any other ads that would be shown in Massachusetts. So again, we don't recommend this change in 256.02 or later on when it shows up in the regulations. Any questions? Good afternoon, Christina. Any questions? Okay. Okay, easy enough. So I will turn it back to Mina now to discuss the added language in 256.02.1. Thanks, Christina. So in 250.01 in the draft in the packet, actually 250.02, excuse me, one at the bottom of page 107 in the packet, we had added language. We added this for when the packet came in before we received the attorney general's comments. I just wanna talk about the impetus for this and then some of what we've received since. During the conversation with the first assistant Moore, there was a suggestion that perhaps there ought to be clearer indication that other laws, in particular 93A, the Conserved Protection Act, as well as 93A, which protects personal information be referenced clearly here. So there's no confusion that this is setting a different standard. Prior to getting the red lines, we had suggested, and I think our preference, I know our preference is to have a broader statement that nothing in these regulations is intended to lower the bar for what operators, vendors, anybody really subject to your jurisdiction needs to do with respect to any other statute. That includes certainly 93A. It certainly includes 93H. The concern from my perspective, of course, when you start listing things, it's easy to omit something and someone looking at these regs in the distant future might wonder why this provision, not that one. So that's sort of more of a matter of drafting. Since the NEAG's office has provided sort of a list of different requirements and that they think ought to be referenced, that include, including but not limited to several federal statutes as well as 93A and other provisions. So again, after reviewing that, I think our recommendation is to still have this broader language so that it's clear that you're capturing all of those pieces. However, and just for the sake of talking about the topic at the same time, if you scroll down to page 108, we acknowledge that one of the places where there might be an opportunity for some confusion would be if someone believed under the prior draft, this is in 2506041, that for the purposes of determining what is false or deceptive advertising, that you're really limited to what's in 256. In other words, you can't possibly be, the argument would be I cannot be engaged in false or deceptive advertising if I'm complying with 256. To avoid that potential argument, we're actually recommending striking language in 250604 and just making it clear that sports waging operators may not allow conduct, participate, et cetera in deceptive advertising marketing or branding for sports wagering. And so that is a broader statement. Again, this is sort of the misfortune of trying to get to, having ships passing the night a little bit, the Attorney General's office obviously hasn't seen this language. We just saw their language yesterday. So we, but we think again, this addresses their concern without calling out a particular statute. But I think it's pretty clear that the intent here is not to displace, replace, supersede anything of the sort. Their own, their jurisdiction that they might have under 93A or the ability of a consumer to take action under the consumer protection laws. Questions for Mina on that. Mina, I have one observation. In their comment, their suggested language I should say, it's interesting to me that they, instead of taking that broad approach that, you're suggesting, I've got to scroll back to the vision, they do say existing laws concerning truthful and accurate advertising. So they're actually, it's a subset that's of course a primary concern to them in their consumer protection. But with that, that might leave out something, right? Notwithstanding, of course, they've got some particulars, but with our language, we're going to get everything, right? Is that- That's our belief and obviously the folks at the Attorney General's office have a match respect for their viewpoint on this and they're the experts in this. So we may want further conversation on it, but the idea is, yeah, they're coming at it from this particular focus. We want to be clear in a way, I guess I would say, although it's broader, this is a bit of humble drafting, purposely so on the commission side, where we are not trying to displace this or any other statute. There may be wire fraud issues. There may be, we have this in other places in the commission's regulations, partially to sort of keep laser focus on what you can and should be regulating versus what might be outside of what may also be in someone else's bailiwick like this. I also would say if you were to accept language like that, my one correct, one sort of edit might be to remove existing. I certainly wouldn't want someone to say that future laws regarding unfair deceptive practice, you wouldn't want to have to keep updating the recs, but the short answer, Madam Chair, is yes. I think yours is your current draft or the as drafted is more inclusive and certainly understand the intent, but I don't think that there's a significant risk that you're undoing any of the good work these other laws do. No, I'm just, again, we'll have a little bit of time in case we are missing what they were intending. So I appreciate that. Thank you. With that, so that's 2506041 and at 2506021, excuse me, and 2506041, there is thereafter starting at 2506043. So skipping over any other comments. This is another comment that comes up actually in a few different places. There were questions from various operators and others asking whether the commission would consider allowing a variety of different ways to limit what has to be said about terms and conditions or exclusions to promotions, I guess it's how I've phrased the topic broadly. Those comments range from, for instance, where items are excluded in Massachusetts, having a sort of void work prohibited language. So actually I will start with that one. This is at 250602. The question is, was in that language, we say if an offering is not available in Massachusetts, you essentially have to say so. Question was, could we simply say void work prohibited in a national ad rather than saying not available in Massachusetts, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so we've kind of all heard different kinds of these ads. Our recommendation is to keep this as is. I will note that 2506022, it has some of the application of this may have had more force a couple of weeks ago than it does now when there were licensed entities who had not yet received certificates of operation. I think it's a little bit clearer now that entities are up and running, but this will matter certainly as other entities come in, as products get rolled out, promotions are available one place or another. So no change being recommended there. The same issue pops up and there are some changes suggested in 250604, three, four and five. There was a request there to go to Ohio and that sort of pointed to a lot of the Ohio model of terms and conditions don't need to be available right in the advertisement or right in the, whether that's a television advertisement or a Instagram, Facebook type post, but rather one click away. We looked at this language, it sort of thought about ways to reconcile it with discussions you've had around sections 247 and 248 especially. And our suggestion is an approach that would still require material terms and conditions to be in the advertisements, but to allow a further listing of any other things you need to know to be available in that sort of one click away method, which is a, so it's a little bit more of a rigorous standard than Ohio's, but still addresses the issue that some commenters raised of crowding out other information including without that exception that responsible gaming messaging, if it's all in that. So Mina, I had asked you this question yesterday about, because my first reaction last time this came up and they said, well, we can't fit everything in if we're doing it on social media. And my gut reaction was, you shouldn't be putting it out in that medium, you should be putting other messages out if you can't get it in there. And I still kind of hold that view. They pointed us to Ohio, I know in the comments. And the question I had for you yesterday was whether there's any other state that's more restrictive than Ohio? Is it in line with what we stand now, which is not allowing the one click away? Is there anybody who does that right now? I believe originally Ontario and Virginia where this language came from, I just did not have a chance to confirm exactly where it got the language, but this came from another state initially. I know that much, so this was not, we didn't start with Ohio and strike their language initially. So there are states that still require that. Pennsylvania and New York's advertising regulations, as you know, really emphasize the conspicuous disclosure of terms and conditions. The non-materiality piece, I think based on our review of the regs from other states, some of this is as the industry develops, there's these sort of nuances are coming up. So some of the older being only a couple of years old, but a couple older regs, you'll see you have to disclose terms and conditions. And when you start seeing some of this breakdown, and I think this is a wise way to do it, it's also something that is consistent with what you're doing on Unresponsible Gaming where perhaps not every part of the message is right there, but the key information that's needed is there. All right, so the material information. Yeah. Questions, further questions? Okay. There was, I think that's it for 256 before, up until, I'm just making sure we're not skipping any comments that we didn't take while we're doing this. Yeah, thank you. So in 256.05C, this was another sort of variation on the same theme, FanDuel had requested the section be clarified to require advertisements to clearly and conspicuously, disclose any required wager, as opposed to some of the more detailed information that's required here, the amount that the patrons required to wager in the same size and style and font. And so they would like to change that to more of a conspicuous and clear standard. This is a judgment call for the commission, but we left it in again. I think when we started way back months ago, with the very first draft of this, we had suggested in many more places, clear, conspicuous, prominent, that sort of those sort of adjectives. The suggestion from the commission then was to add more details about what that really means. And this is, well, that's not in every place. That's one of the places where keeping the same size and font makes sense to do that. So that's the question is really does, is this a better place for having those conditions be in different format? We're not recommending a change it. This is obvious from the graph, but unless there's any discussion on it. Looks like everyone's all set, commissioners, okay. All right, Chair Meena, I'm sorry, which? I'm sorry, so this is two 50s. Sorry, commissioners, give me a tack over here. Two 506045C. So there's no change shown, but I'm just looking through my notes on the comments in that 75 page packet. And that was a comment from Van Dool is rather than requiring that some of these disclosures being the same size and style as the rest of the ad that for complimentary items, that it just be clear and conspicuous. Did you skip over 5B, Subtractions 5B? Are we coming back to that? Or just there were numerous comments to pop up requirement. I think deserves some attention. So 5B requires the use of a pop-up message. So there were a lot of comments on pop-ups, Commissioner Skinner, but they came in a context later on in the reg, I believe about unsolicited pop-ups to vulnerable persons or excluded persons. So that's where I was going to talk about that piece. Two 506045B. References pop-ups. Correct. In this context, it references them as that one of the places that if the, one of the ways in which you can fulfill your requirement as an operator to provide the material or the terms and conditions, generally as revised material is either to put it in the ad itself or if you're going to be on an account that it comes into in a pop-up account and to, excuse me, a pop-up message as well. So this is, in this sense, it's a tool of how you might be able to disclose the terms and conditions. And my recollection, and I can certainly double check the comments, is that most of the comments about pop-ups had to do with the requirement not to sort of limit unsolicited pop-up messaging. I don't know if we're thinking of two different things. If I can clarify, Commissioner Skinner, I think you're remembering correctly, there is a comment from DraftKings proposing to delete 2506045B. But based on how, you know, based on Mina's summary of what that provision is really going for in this section, we don't recommend taking it out. Okay. But there are, there is another discussion relative to the pop-ups later in the regulation. Is that what you're also saying? Yes, there is. Correct, yes. Thank you. And thank you, Christina. I have not recalled that particular comment, so I appreciate that. Again, I apologize, so I know I'm going a little bit back and forth between the general comments and some of the attorney general's comments. Other things that came up in 250604 before we go to 250605, which had a number that we're still reviewing, is there is one thing that the attorney general's office is asking us to consider is adding a paragraph at the end of 041 that says that unfair deceptive advertising, marketing or branding for sports wagering would include mobile application design elements, not just sort of clarifies not just language. That comment obviously came in, I'm not sure before we had the discussion today about the more limited language in 041. So we just want to review and see if that still makes sense given the truncated language we're proposing. In 044 the, this is just, I think I want to just stop on this one for a second. 044 is the language that says no employee of any sports wagering operator, it now is proposed would say or an employee of any sports wagering vendor. And that was a request that came from Caesars actually to clarify that. Shall it advise or encourage individual patrons to place a specific wager of any specific kind subject or amount, but the restriction does prohibit a general or advertising promotional activity. There was a request, I think this was also at Caesars request to add language to make it clear that that doesn't prohibit a promotional activity that for instance says that you have to place sort of explains the material term and condition that you must place a specific wager type kind subject amount in order to receive a promotional benefit. So that I, if it says you must wager $10 to get this benefit or a minimum of $10 that that's not considered a violation of this section or that this promotion is available if you're wagering on March Madness games but not otherwise or something that that's not considered a violation of this section. We thought that was a helpful clarification. And so we added it. I will know that again, these are a big cross-card that AG's comment would be to simply end this section 256.04 which appears at Sorry, Madam Chair, that kind of I wasn't sure if you were looking for the page. I am, yes, actually. Okay, thank you. And yeah, so the AG's recommendation is to actually not include the last sentence at all that says this restriction does not prohibit general advertising or promotional activities. And the rationale there was this concern about that operators should not be encouraging patrons to place specific bets. I think we agree with that, that just, I think the point of the clarification is just try to distinguish or give clarity on what is allowed. And so that really the question for the commission is to use as examples if it's general and it's not being targeted at an individual to say, we think you should bet on, I think there's sort of different variations of this, but one example is, if you see an ad that says there's a, Celtics are playing the Pacers tomorrow. You know, that's just an ad that's included with a sports betting ad, sports wagering ad. That's one category versus the Celtics are a good pick for tomorrow. That clearly would be prohibited by or for its directing a particular bet. But I think what the operators were asking for is, is that first category? There's a game tomorrow that you might be interested in, in wagering on, is that permissible? So that's, I mean, again, this is one as we're getting the comments, you know, that maybe want to revisit, but just wanted to sort of explain what I think the two different, the tension, right? There's language intended to prohibit guiding bets in a particular way, but also a desire for some clarity on what is allowed. So nation on page 13 of the Attorney General's Office's submission is interesting. So we can digest that, maybe. Yes, yeah. Yeah, I think that's right. That's where that, that's what I'm referring to, Madam Chair, thank you, is that, they had an explanation next to their comment of why they would remove that. Okay. They, the eight, there were no other comments from operators that we plan to discuss on 250604, but 2506046, the Attorney General's Office, did have a comment on that, to add a prohibition. I think they might have had just a small typo in the citation, but that one of the prohibited activities would be using individuals to provide purported expertise or wagering advice, or employed by our contractor, otherwise compensated by a professional or an amateur sports league team, club player in which a wager can be placed, or a network station that broadcasts an event on which a wager can be placed. We would, I think this one, just to consider the issue a little bit further, is just the scope of the language. The, I think the idea here from what we understand from the Attorney General's first letter and this comment is to try and limit a sort of end around of what we just talked about in 04, that a sort of encouragement of particular bets by folks affiliated with the operator. The first sub-paragraph of that is largely covered, I believe, not in niece regulations, but in a lot of the regulations developed with the input from the sports governing bodies, that there's some limitation on what certainly currently employed athletes, coaches can do, although this would be broader, it's really anyone who's employed by or contracted with them. So an employee of the NFL network, the NBA network would be an employee as well. The second one, the scope, it's not in one thing we'd want to clarify and perhaps is another topic of clarification is whether this would be intended to capture just ads featuring that personal loan, which is or that person sort of in an advertisement, for instance, a broadcaster doing an ad for a particular operator versus comments that might come up in the course of a stream, which would be much harder to enforce for the commission or in the context of a telecast. Questions for Mina. All right, I think that takes us through to 5604 for real this time. I'm sorry, I think I said that a few times. So 250605. Christina, if I could kick it to you on the advertising to youth and the social media piece. Yes, definitely. So we just made a small tweak to 250605.3. There was a comma after the word endorsements on the second to last line that we've removed to just remove any ambiguity as to whether or not all celebrity endorsements would be banned or just the ones designed to appeal to individuals under 21. So that's an easy one. I can move on unless anyone has questions about that. Where was the comma? I'm sorry. Oh, I see it now. I see it now. Yeah, it's very subtle. After the word endorsements. So the more substantive edits that we've made to this section are in 250605.4. We had again, two slightly competing comments on subsection A. IDEA said that they thought that this language was a bit vague. We don't tend to agree with that. I think it's usage statistics of social media sites are pretty readily available. And it can be determined whether or not they're used primarily by people under 21 or not. The AG has suggested some language in the write-up that we received yesterday to make this a little bit more specific. And it actually lines it up with a couple of the other subsections here. So their proposed language change to subsection 4A would be to say in media outlets, including social media, video and television platforms where 25% of the audience is estimated to be under 21 years of age. That edit is fine with us, but like I said, it lines up with the other subsections and we don't have any particular concerns about it. The second part of their edit I'll return to in a minute because before we've received the AG's proposed language on these age exclusion issues, we had included our own. So you'll see this in the red line in your packet. What we're proposing to include as subsection 4B is basically a requirement that media outlets, including social media, use any controls that they have available at their disposal to prevent sending advertisements out to folks that are under 21, including by age category exclusions, which we understand from the AG is the primary way that they do that. But we want to keep the language a little bit broader just in case they had something else at their disposal. The AGO's proposal here kind of just collapses our subsections A and B into one and just provides that the operator must utilize all available targeted advertising tools to exclude individuals under 21 from receiving advertisements on the platform, which accomplishes the same goal probably a little bit. It's probably a little bit easier to take the AG's suggestion on this one, but that's really a call for the commission. I think either way you accomplish the same goal. So anything, I'm sorry, can I share some time just looking and getting to check on you first. Is there anything in your proposal 12605 for B that is not included in their subsection of the last clause? Is there, they say all available targeted advertising tools to exclude all individuals. They use the word advertising. We've only spent a little bit broader. Yes, Madam Chair, that's the one obvious one. I would point out is that we have the list of categories, the display dissemination distribution of advertising. And I might stick with that phrase for consistency and for that breadth, but I think that's a word smithing. The concept as Christina said is still the same. Got it. And then consistently use advertising marketing branding. Correct, yeah. Yeah, well, it sounds like there's a plan to take the best approach, right? Right, exactly. But it looks like we were like-minded. Because I think they've brought it to our attention, so. Yes, Madam Chair. This was something that they had identified in their March 7th letter. And we just kind of took our best guess at what the language they would propose would be. And we were pretty close, but- Pretty close, exactly. Great, Mark. Thank you. I can take the next one, Christina, if that's okay with you on college campuses and let's just further comments on the social media piece. This was a requested clarification. And I apologize, because I've not, where, why am I not seeing, here it is. Where are you? I'm sorry, it's because it's on between pages. It's page 109 into 110, excuse me, 110 to 111. So at the top of 111. There's a request from, I think, and made this comment that they just wanted it to be clear that the limitation on advertising on college university campuses or school newspapers, et cetera, would not apply to, for instance, media available that has nothing to do with the college just happens to be available. So I think that was always the intent, but with this just a clarification. This would not be that you can't stream otherwise available television show, for instance, into the college campus. Other changes in the rest of this section are all, that you see are all sort of addition of the word sports wagering where appropriate or for the same purposes before to make it clear that we're only talking about advertising, marketing, branding, et cetera, for sports wagering. This is a special importance to entities like fanatics who might have sports related marketing that has nothing to do with sports wagering. So that was sort of the purpose here. One comment that, the last comment on this section that we did not accept, there was a request to eliminate 256.054 F also at the top of page 111 and rely simply on the earlier reference to events aimed at minors or where 25% more of the audience is expected to be under 21. F is intended to be a sort of catchall where it's as to any other audience. So there's a reason that they're both in there. It's not redundant. One is purely for events. One is for anytime there's an audience over 25% and there's intentional overlap in that case. 256.06, if I can move on to there, there's a couple of comments and a couple of changes. First, you'll see in 256.061 three lines in the reference to moderate or high risk of gambling addiction. Some of the broadcasters had asked it to take that language out. We discussed this with the responsible gaming folks at the commission, including of course, Director Vandalinen and the rational is to keep it in. This is modeled on Ontario and Washington DC's regulations. So that's one comment. There was also a comment, this was from, I believe from the Attorney General's office to remove the word intentionally in this case. And we agree with that comment and actually already considered that change because the word, where is it? Any, the word that's sort of redundant with the fact that this prohibition already applies to advertising, marketing, burning, et cetera, aimed exclusively. So that is already an agency standpoint there. So I think that's the reason for keeping that as is, or excuse me, for removing intentionally there. The next set of, so there is a couple of comments from the Attorney General's office that on this section that I will reserve, I think if, or I'll bring up now, but I think we're still adjusting whether this makes sense. There was a request that each operator disclosed the steps they take to comply with this subsection on at least monthly basis in a publicly available document. Obviously we want to just make sure that that kind of disclosure is one appropriate and that there's a meaningful way to digest that without creating unreasonable workload on your end. And for what could be done with that, there's a handful of comments related to that throughout the Attorney General's comments about add to the record keeping requirements around advertising. So if there's no questions about 2506.061, I'm gonna just move on to a couple of comments on 02. Or we did get a significant amount of comment from the operators. One change, I think that there was a comment that we do as Madam Chair, you noted a few minutes ago use this sort of litany of advertising marketing branding or promotional materials throughout these regulations. That's from the statute and generally speaking, it makes sense. However, Penn National commented here that branding in this particular case could include logos or other passive advertising that doesn't really have a call to action. For example, the sign on the green monster that sets a name of an operator and just that. There's sort of no, you'd have to go look up what the operator is to figure out what to do next and then you'd get all the responsible gaming messaging anyway. So in that context, it made sense to remove branding. There's also other examples of if a person is an employee of the company's wearing a T-shirt, should that have responsible gaming or they give away a frisbee, a T-shirt, et cetera. Does that need all that information? And so we thought this was one place where it made sense to take out the word branding to strike a reasonable approach on that. So that's the first change in 256.01. Any comments on that before I move on to the next one? So we're all set on that, you can make sure, okay? Can you move on to the next item three or are you still gonna be on two? I'm still on two. There's a second change in two that I wanna clarify. And so this one, it was intended to be a simple moving up of language as a change. I apologize, there's a slight tweak that was not intentional here, but I also, so it should say, and such other responsible gaming information. So this was the language here is just defining what responsible gaming messaging is. And there was a discussion sometime back, I believe, of giving some additional flexibility to the commission to be able to define what other responsible gaming messaging is needed other than the DPH problem gaming helpline. Under the statute, there is some, the commission is to take some input from DPH, but I think that the idea was there might be other language. There was a significant amount of public comment or I would say public, but comment from many of the operators that the national ads should be allowed to use a national hotline or national other sort of more standardized messaging rather than what the commission might require in Massachusetts. Our recommendation is not to do that. Your statute does refer specifically to some information being provided by DPH. I think you've had that discussion before. And I think, at least just speaking from my own anecdotal experience and viewership, it seems perfectly possible for advertisers to tailor ads to Massachusetts. So we don't think there's any legal constraints, certainly from requiring Massachusetts specific language. Here, again, we're leaving flexibility to allow additional language in proper formats. And I know one of the other concerns that came up, some of these comments are now, have a little bit of a, I've aged a little bit about sort of having too much language, but I know that that's something that Director Banderlin and the commission have been working on to make sure there's the right amount of messaging so it doesn't get lost, but there's not really any change in the ranks needed for that.  Yeah, and Meena, we're working in real time and we had a call with DPH late yesterday afternoon and that had some discussion there. Based on an email they previously sent, we were looking at a couple of things. I just wanna make sure I'm understanding this correctly because the reference to the statutory requirement, what I've looked at is 23N section 4D3, but that's it. I just wanna make sure we're 100% correct here. It talks about commission shall promulgate regulations that require mobile applications and digital platforms authorized for sports rage or to probably display upon each entry into the application or platform, the telephone number and website for problem gathering, hotline, overseen by the Department of Public Health. So that's the, and maybe you know something I'm not aware of, but if that's the platform, we had some of this discussion internally, that's a statutory requirement for the platform when you enter the platform to have it. It actually doesn't, my understanding is that there is no statutory requirement with respect to advertising. So that would be within the commission's regulatory discretion. Am I understanding that correctly? I just wanna make sure we're all on the same page. That is my understanding as well, that that is for the platforms, not the advertising. As I know, Todd, this is something you and I have talked about. So I see you nodding. So I think we're on the page or yes. So there was some confusion. And so we did have a conversation with DPH and it may appear that this language is sort of conflating the platform and advertising as far as a requirement. And this provision has requires that the language be provided by the Department of Public Health. And so one of the issues they brought up, and I don't wanna speak for DPH and they're concerned they just flagged something for us. And I think Mark is listening as well. He can join in his own call with me. With respect to advertising, the ask was for it to just be DPH information on the advertising. And this just came from the director and not have game sense or any other information. They indicated, the director indicated an issue with having sort of two things put together appearing to be combined. So that we may need to put a hold on this and then go back and figure out if there's really gonna be an issue there. And then I haven't had the opportunity to brief most of the commissioners about the issue and DPH's position on that. But my understanding is that by statute where we are required to require that the operators have the website and the number for DPH on the platform when you went to the platform. But this piece is within the commission's discretion how they like to handle it, is that correct? Correct, and Karen, I would just go a step further because I think just to maybe help with the discussion the language, whether it says and or here I think is wouldn't change this. The language is intended to leave some flexibility for the commission to make the decision whether any additional information makes sense or not. So it's certainly could be the case that additional information required by the commission is an all set, that's certainly a possibility. This reg would not eliminate that, but I think that's a better left for the commission in conversation with DPH to sort of sort of sort out and be able to adjust over time rather than have too rigorously reflected in the reg, which is why we wanted to kind of broaden it. The comments from the operators, I think that we talked about are sort of separate and apart, I think looking for a national approach and that does not sort of sound like any buddy's preference on the commission side or DPH certainly, but this issue of just how much more gets added, that's a conversation could happen regardless of what, which how this reg ends up with this language. I follow up with one of Karen's points. If there are no questions as to the, for Mina on the expanded language with the more. The question I have is there, there does appear to have been a little bit of confusion between what we require on the platform. And I think our statute says we need to allocate reg, but would that be in a different reg? It's not going to fall in advertising if it's the requirement around the platform. And Karen, you can elaborate. I know you had- I think that's correct. And I believe it already is. I can't remember the exact number, Madam Chair, but I know that the language about some of this would be and it might be 247, but I would have to double check. Oh, okay. That's really helpful. If you find that Mina, when you get a chance, can you shoot her? Yeah, it's either 130 ads, it's they're starting to blend together just a little bit, I apologize, but it's definitely there somewhere. Thank you, that's really helpful. So Mark, did you have anything further? Not really. I mean, I think I understand the value of the problem gambling, helpline being displayed. And I certainly understand the value of the MGC's responsible gaming messaging as well. I think it's the feedback that I've received from our operators is the, and I think I sympathize with their challenge of making sure that each one has its space and that it's clear. And so I've been trying to work with them as closely as I can to kind of find that happy space where it's the message that we want and still meeting this space and size requirements that exist. And I'd like to say they are sincerely attempting to meet this requirement. So can I just clarify a minute? So you mentioned there may have been a typo. So with the language that you're proposing the commission vote on, say and or or. That is one of the topics I want to raise to the commission for conversation, Karen. I was noting only that what my intention when this was my fault was to transpose what's at the top of page 112 into the prior section and I accidentally changed the end to an or. It does make a difference. The end of course would mean that the helpline has to be here and potentially other information versus an or where the commission might would open the door for potentially that not being necessary in the future. Of course, the commission could always decide that part of its required responsible gaming messaging is the helpline. So it's not saying you won't include it but it's leaving again some flexibility for the commission and DPH to figure out what needs to happen here pointing out what you said, Karen, that commission ultimately has some flexibility under the statute on this. Thoughts, commissioners? So the point is is that if it were or the commission we could right now direct the vandal ended to include as our responsible gaming messaging the 1-800 number, even if the other pause wasn't there in the website or Lake in our messaging. With and the point, if things were to evolve another commission could decide not to, right? That's what you're saying. Correct, that's what I'm saying. Anybody has any further thoughts on that right now? But Karen also, you and Mark are still concentrating solves here as well. Yeah, we've got to figure that out. I mean, ultimately, that question of DPH's request that it only have DPH information there that the commission not put game sense or anything else that the commission wants to put on there. I mean, ultimately, I think that's the commission's call. It seems to be known to authority, but we also recognize their request that certainly not prepared to articulate all their reasoning today. Michelle, right? Yeah, I mean, I remember when we first talked about this it was, we talked about the or as opposed to the and for the reasons of, if you put too much on there it's gonna be hard to grasp one of them. I don't like the idea of us not putting our own game sense out there given the success that it's had and given that it's a complimentary and slightly different approach. So again, I'm not intimately familiar with the DPH discussions and not tend to diminish them, but I'd like us to continue to have the game sense and information out there. Maybe Mark, you can explain DPH's work and our work and how you see them being complimentary and also quite distinct too. So maybe we just need a little bit of reframe our minds. Right, so the purpose of the problem gambling helpline operated by the Department of Public Health is to provide the resource for individuals who are seeking help for a gambling problem, community-based resources for a gambling problem and they have an up-to-date list of what those community resources are and can easily connect people to that. The purpose of game sense and why we would want to have game sense, the game sense website, game sense phone number included, perhaps a phone number. It is different. Game sense, it would connect with the game sense advisor. The game sense advisors, it's primarily the way that people can connect and enroll remotely in the voluntary self-dissolution program. Game sense advisors also have conversations with persons who are interested in reducing their level of risk but not perhaps not in that space where they're ready for those community-based resources. So they're familiar with each operator's platform to talk about play management settings, cooling off other strategies to reduce gambling risk. So absolutely, they are complementary and if you think of it on a continuum, both has holds really important space. Really helpful, Mark, thank you. Rishers, any questions for Karen and Mark on this? The issue we have now in chairs that operators are inquiring exactly what language do we have to have in our advertisements? So it's something we should address sooner rather than later. And I think the ultimate question is what kind of difference do you want to make to have two DPHs per class? Our regulation does say at the first part, using language provided by DPH. And the one thing we've learned and we've pivoted a little with advertising is that real estate is really valuable. And there's a part of me that thinks if we could work with DPH to get the 1-800 number and a powerful tagline that they want and then us to use our game sense information with a powerful tagline, that it'll get more punch if we have way too many words. But that's a no marketing expert. But I think about that and I do think about the fact that if it's too lengthy, it becomes clumsy and it loses its impact altogether. So... Madam Chair, can I just wait? I can speak specifically for game sense. We've tried to keep the game sense tagline and information as brief as possible. Would the idea that our tagline is play it smart from the start, that then you see that tagline carryover to other materials and including the game sense in a.com website, printed materials, a variety of other ways. So the idea is to increase brand awareness that then carries over to other platforms. Madam Chair, Karen's looking for some, probably some direction from us that she can revisit DPH so that we can give guidance to the operators. Am I right, Karen? You bet. Right. Right. We would want to get back to DPH. Am I correct? I think it would be helpful to hear directly from DPH. I know that Karen, you're intending to brief the commissioners. I thought I heard you say earlier, but this item gets pushed over to Monday and it seems likely, very likely, or that it will, would DPH be available on Monday to state their issues so that we have a full understanding of what the exact concerns are. I can make that part. It could be in a written document submitted or a presentation on Monday. Okay. Does that make sense? Yeah, okay. Just trying to jump. It's like Commissioner O'Brien, I like the idea of having the reference to get to our own material as well. We definitely want to hear any concerns that DPH has and fully understand them. Thanks. Anything else, Mark, do you want it to add? I'd see your volume is still. No. Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right. Anything else on that provision, Nina? No, not at the moment. I think we have our marching orders for next steps on that. So thank you. That's the only thing on that portion of the provision, I should say. Last comment, this was at the bottom of page 112. It's a little bit hard to see perhaps, but the whether there's a question on whether this had the, excuse me, responsible gaming messaging had to be on every web page, every single page of a website or the website as a whole. Some operators had asked, can we simply have it on a website? And I can speak at this location. We did speak with Mark about this one and we thought that was probably an acceptable place for it, again, keeping in mind that for particular posting or particular ad, it would still be in each particular ad. Not to go backwards, but I'm going to go backwards really briefly. There's one comment that doesn't show up in the packet because we don't recommend accepting it, but I wanted to flag it for you. This is at the top of page 112, the subsection B for billboards, the height of the font used for the responsible messaging has to be 5% of the height or width, whichever is greater of the billboard. There was a request to change this down to 2%. And again, we're not recommending that here, 5% is consistent with New York and Pennsylvania and frankly, I think 2% of a billboard is pretty small. So those are the reasons that we're not suggesting that. But with that, that is the last comment I think on this section. Adam Chair, I'm blind as a bat when I'm on these major highways and I'm looking at that, 5% is just enough for people like me to be able to see it. Anything lower would be not so good. You must have better vision than me, Commissioner Hill, because I was down in the Gillette area and I had to say it was, even 5% is hard to see going by a car, so. I am impressed with what I've seen, to be honest, but anything smaller would be difficult to see, especially when you're doing 65 miles an hour. In a 65, of course, right? Please, of course. Well, I'm often doing 10 miles per hour as I roll through traffic and I've been able to read it just fine. So where before, we really couldn't write, I'm sure, no, I mean, we just couldn't, so. Okay. So if we're okay with that, Kristina, thank you for catching that. I'm gonna move on to 250.607. There are no changes shown. There were a couple of comments, one that was rejected and one that is just one for consideration from the Attorney General's office. This is where, Mr. Skinner, the comment about pop-up ads came up. 250.607, several commenters noted that they should not be responsible for controlling unsolicited pop-up ads. That's not, that they may not know who's getting them in terms of self-excluded persons, especially. We, I would disagree with some of the concern here. The language is that they cannot direct. This is one of the places we're knowing or intentional language, which we've rejected elsewhere, actually is here. The messages can't be directed to an individual in the self-exclusion program. If someone is, if an operator doesn't have reason to know that they're reaching someone in the self-excluded program, and that really wouldn't be directing it to them in the first place. Moreover, I think some of the solutions that were suggested were a bit complicated to limit it for when the self-excluded person has given a number, but not otherwise for text messages or to suggest that they have to give a phone number or a way to do it. I think this is one where I think the language has worked from what we've seen in other states or does exist in other states, and we would just keep it as is. The other comment in this section, and the AG's office actually agreed with the language in 250.607.3, but not its placement. They were suggesting it going 250.606 as a separate piece. I think it could belong in either. It was put here because it's sort of a message to folks who are on the self-excluded list who might be annoyed or sort of struggling with the fact that they're still receiving messaging to know that they have a right to unsubscribe. That's why we put it in this section. It could go in the prior section where it's a more general prohibition. We can think about that a little bit more, but that's not a substantive issue. I think it's just a placement issue. We could then I will move on to disruption to viewers. This was one that got some attention from various parties. 250.608, we made a few very small changes. This came at the urging of a couple of operators or at least a pen and perhaps another one. And the thought here was to keep it closer in line with what the statute gives you authority over. The statute is somewhat limited in terms of the commission or what's explicitly stated about the commission's ability to control advertising at sports venues and sporting events. So we tweak the language slightly to avoid language that obscures the gameplay area. The second issue was one that many operators mentioned and I believe also came up in the, actually I'm not sure it did come up. It did not come up in the Attorney General's red line actually is this issue of saturation. Many operators wanted some clarification. I shouldn't say many, at least several operators wanted clarification on what would be saturation and whether they would be responsible for other parties. I think that's a fair point. It would be difficult for the commission to require and may actually be problematic to sort of say to the industry as a whole, you together can't saturate more than X percent. This is really only at sporting events to begin with. So we did add in the words by a sports waging operator with the intent that that would be really intended to limit full or very significant stadium ad buys. So the example that I have kept using is you don't want Fenway Park to look like the kind of like T station that has been where the advertising has all been bought by one company by one operator, that kind of saturation that might be too much. I think that seemed to us a happy medium for the moment in 256.08. I can keep going in the interest of time, especially trying to get through it all. 256.09, the changes here, the Attorney General's Office had asked in 256.09 to this, we have not, this is in the red lines that just came in to require that as in that included endorsements include not just the that they include the disclosure, excuse me, of the relationship and that's sort of in addition to what has to be in the ad. We're reviewing that, we just wanna make sure that if that gets added, that it's workable for advertising branding or promotional purposes, it may be for instance, I can imagine it might be easier to enforce that if you have an ad where somebody is coming out with endorsement and is able to have underneath it, paid endorsement, et cetera, versus in the context of a national ad that might be a little bit more difficult. So there's a couple of issues there, but that's one comment we're taking a look at. The other comment that I believe came in the initial March 7th letter from the AGs, and that's why it probably wasn't, and we included it, so it's probably why it wasn't repeated here, is adding the, at the, you see at the bottom of page 113, this language about complying with the FTC's guides concerning the use of endorsements and testimonials, that's sort of a fair disclosure. It actually gets at some of these issues. The reason this is included in actually going all the way back to, you might be thinking days ago when we were talking about 93A in this conversation, it was only an hour ago, is this piece, this one is not a law or regulation, it's a guidance. And so this one did make sense to call out as a sort of standard of conduct, as opposed to some of the legal requirements. So that's why we added that here. Any further questions on endorsements? That came from the original letter, they just didn't happen to include it as time. Exactly, because by the time the packet came out, it was ready in it, so they may have, I hope they're happy to see that we read that letter closely. 25610, there was a couple of comments, both from the AG and from the parties on the records. There was a concern raised by Penn and Fanatics, first of all, about maintaining all of this information. They prefer just maintaining a log. We recommend against limiting this. I think it's, this is all digital information while there may be a lot of it, what will be important if there's ever a enforcement action or a complaint from a patron is what was actually said and done at the time. And so we don't want to have that material lost to time. The other piece that came in in one of the comment learners, I believe this was from the broadcasters group, is just a confirmation that the commission wasn't looking to control social media accounts. And that's certainly not the intent that the commission does not want to be in charge of what one post. However, the reason for this change, and this is augmented by a comment the Attorney General's office made and that we also want to consider is to be able to look at not necessarily what the ad says or does, but given your restrictions on who the ads might be targeted to, you might need access beyond a printed out copy of a say Instagram post to figure out was it properly, I'm gonna be a little bit over my skis in terms of IT here, but was it properly limited, properly controlled in the way they were supposed to? The Attorney General's office has suggested language, which we think we might propose in the next draft, suggesting that the records maintained are sufficient to describe all targeting parameters used so that you have that information if you need it. The very last section here, 256.11 enforcement, there are small typographical change at the end, just a missed M and CMR, but the comment at some point, you know, there's some comments that basically in support from the operators of this desire to review, or only to only have pre-review of ads as an enforcement mechanism as opposed to in general, the Attorney General's office had hinted that they might suggest that for, or had mentioned in their first letter that they might suggest that all ads be reviewed, they did not put them the red lines and for reasons we've talked about before, we think this is an appropriate place to go, that it's a useful enforcement tool if someone has a track record or has shown that they have ads that do not comply, but that the sort of administrative work involved in reviewing all ads might actually make it harder to enforce against the ones you are worried about. That's it for what's in the document. I will raise just, sorry, Madam Jiedemann, to cut you off there. I'm sorry, Nina, on that, for some reasons, when I read their letter that accompanies these comments, they do suggest, I know we're getting tired, I might be wrong, their post-language specifically relates to, and then it's on page two of their letter having us review commercial language. This is, I'm sorry, are you talking about the most recent letter or the- The letter that comes with the first letter doesn't help, and it does that the post-language relates to having, especially if you're not going to submit your promotional offers for commission review and approval. And you're saying that that's what- So that, at least not, it did not show up directly in the enforcement section. I apologize, it may be in one of the sections we talked about briefly. So we'll double check that. Okay. So not just as an enforcement tool, yeah. Yeah, as an enforcement tool, versus having us do it for- Right. That didn't come, we didn't discuss that today, right? No, we discussed that when we went from the draft to the final of these a couple of weeks ago, or a couple of months ago. Because that would require, and I think first assistant more, Rachel, more, did understand that that would require part of it of resources, right? Right. I think the reference you're thinking of, Madam Chair, this is why I missed it in the conversation today, is that for review and approval, they did not ask for that for all ads. What they're asking for is, before a sports wager and promotional offer for use on a platform is used. This was one of the comments they had on 247, which we're not discussing today, so that's where that came in. So it would be a little less on risk perhaps, but it would still require review of all promotions, not of all ads. Right. Sort of a different issue. Again, Karen, 247 is, we're dealing with them. Okay, I've got to go back to 247, clearly. Thank you, Nina. No problem. Final note on these for today is. Excuse me. I'm sorry to him. I'm sorry. I had a question. I'm sorry. No worries. I seem to recall one of the operator commenting that they were being required to submit their ads outside of a compliance related matter. And do we have to reconfirm that that is the case? I was not aware that, I know which comment you're referring to, Commissioner Skinner, I had a little bit of trouble following the comment candidly to understand if what they were suggesting is while these ads were being promulgated, they had a lot of, I know there was a lot of interaction with staff to try to make sure the ads they were creating were appropriate. And if that was in that context, I do recall that that comment noted sort of an appreciation that that was not going to be the ongoing policy. And so that's how I understood that comment that folks seem more comfortable with it where you ended up or at least operators and more comfortable where you ended up. I don't know for sure whether that was a requirement at the time or if it was part of internal control submissions or otherwise. Yeah. Okay. I might have misunderstood the comment as well. And I don't remember that it was required by IEB. And so I'm sure IEB can speak to it at some point directly with the operator if they have been communicated to that this is the submission of those advertisements are required. The other question that I had was for 25610 of section one, just out of curiosity, where does the six year retention period come from? It is a fairly common choice. In this case, I think when we initially selected it, it came from at least the way that I thought if it came from another state, the reason that we thought it was appropriate is it matches the standard of limitations for contract actions in Massachusetts. So not that all of these would be contractual, but to the extent that there's a dispute. And we've seen this, some of the ways that these get presented on the gaming side as having a contract element, it would allow retention for the same time period that you would anticipate somebody making a contract-based claim. Thank you. Other questions? I know we're approaching our hard stop. I mean, do you have anything else? Because I know the Executive Director Wells has one more process issued outside of advertising. So this will be a 10 second endpoint for this. The last comment from the Attorney General's office was to add a 25611 restrictions on targeted advertising and push alerts. This is just another, this one we think is actually a really good example of the kind of thing we should consider for the data privacy and data usage piece. Since it has not been really subjected to public comment yet, it might be more appropriate to do in the form of that rag as opposed to on a final rag now. Okay. Other than that, I have nothing to say. Well, Mena, thank you. We got through the whole rag and now we have our homework and we can get back. I might, I think we really set up well and then commissioners can get individual questions clarified that you have. Commissioner Bryan, I'm gonna be cognizant of the 245. We can swing back to Mena if he wants to hold up. Karen? Yeah, so one sort of just administrative matter that came up and Todd and I just had a great connect on that. Is that we have the category two evaluation scheduled for April, I think it's April 12th. And in the past, we have done a public hearing prior to an evaluation on those. So Todd and I agreed to probably make sense. The reason it triggered something in my mind is that I had had some interaction with a woman who is a theater of a woman owned business and she was interested in whether or not there would be requirements on the construction for some kind of diversity percentages for women know businesses, minority owned businesses, veteran owned businesses and the proper avenue for her to sort of address those concerns would probably be through this public hearing. So my suggestion is we set something up. I just wanted to confirm with the commissioners that that's something we wanted to do. So I guess, yeah, is that right? Everybody's nodding their heads, yes? So if Karen and legal could coordinate with Judy and Grace, we'll find the time in advance for that hearing. And so the focus is that you've brought attention to what is the $7.5 million capital investment in construction that they have as a construction piece. Commissioners, questions or thoughts? Commissioners, Ryan? So unlike most of the other applicants are almost all they are going to be doing substantial construction. So it's a valid query because we have those requirements on the brick and mortar. And in our application, remember, we do go to construction, you know, it's set up for this. Remainer, thank you. Because I know you're so involved with that application development. All right, so we just need to find, I think we did maybe open it up for a couple of hours if I remember correctly. Yeah, so I think the easiest thing would do some kind of virtual open meeting for the public hearing. So we'll coordinate setting that up, make sure that all the commissioners are available for that. Thank you. Yeah, the interest of consistency, I think we should do exactly the same. Great, thank you. Commissioner Mayer, are you leaning in? Oh, okay. All right, now I'll swing back, because now it's 247. Anything else for the legal team? We've gone through so much today and we've got, really, we have one outstanding, let's not forget the definitions, right, Karen? Oh, sorry, muted. That's right, I think we're all set for today though. Okay, so thank you. One other question now, just operationally, is we haven't scheduled for these regs to come back on one day, so that agenda's been posted. Caitlin made sure I had it correctly. So we've got that done. We also would have the opportunity, we have the Wednesday, we were gonna put the regs on on Wednesday as well. Do we think we still need that or should we post for a meeting on Wednesday on the regs? Maybe the legal department can let that be on. I think we should still post for advertising and definitions just in case we need it, and then if we don't need it, go on. Got it. Is our final, final date Wednesday? That's the last available meeting date, the final date, the filing date, excuse me, is next Friday. So if we needed more time and it was available on Thursday morning. Would we wanna add those to the 30th as well just in case? Because we do have a public meeting scheduled for the 30th and Karen was thinking of adding that, that would be really out of an abundance of caution, but because of our posting, we have on the back of our mind. Karen, I wasn't sure if that was true. It certainly can't hurt. It certainly can't hurt to add to the 30th. But just those two, okay, that's helpful. Thank you. And a reminder on the March 30th meeting, we today earlier indicated that we would, maybe it wasn't today, I'm sorry, indicated that we would be doing the contract. Yes, it was. It was Director Wells' first item of business. So that would be adding on the 30th to deal with the contract, I think, for category two application. All right. Okay, great. Anything else, commissioners? And then a motion to adjourn. And with great gratitude, awesome job to the video department and, okay, thank you. Move to adjourn, Madam Chair. Thank you. Second. Commissioner Brown. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Mr. Skinner. Aye. Show me. Aye. My vote yes. Thanks, everyone. Five, zero. Bye.