We should be good Okay A good good morning. This is a convening of the messages is gaming commission We are a few minutes off our mark today. We just completed an agenda-studying meeting needed a few minutes to Work quick break We're holding this meeting Virtually so I'll take a little cough the morning again. Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning again. I am here Good morning again, Commissioner Hill. Hello. I'm here Good morning again, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning, Madam Chair And good morning again, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair. I did not leave All right, so again, I think of the entire team for our Jenna studying meeting it was not productive and They're looking ahead of to March and into April as busy months Shifting a little bit gears and even thinking about horse racing so With that I want to just Briefly an administrative update It's not marked on it on our Agenda but it is certainly part of our our tradition So they want to turn to executive director Wells Yes, thank you very much madam chair. Just a few updates with respect to the launch of sports wagering We are still on on target for a launch of March 10th. We have not publicly stated a Time for the operators. I'm suggesting that we just go if there's no objection from the Commission We give them a 10 a.m. Start time so they can begin to plan for that So is there any issues with that or may I go ahead and just allow them to start at 10 a.m. Should they get their operations certificate on the on the night? That's on good missions Okay, no objections There's no objection madam chair, but I do have a question that since this is not a brick-and-mortar Operation why we would wait till 10 and not have it earlier. I Think it was just more that if there are any issues Or any questions or anything going on around the start time that we would have our staff on duty and working at that time should anything come up Excellent. Thank you. Yes to get organized. Okay. Thank you madam chair. Oh, thank you commission. Yeah And just on that matter, I know that Mills will coordinate pushing that out publicly Yeah, and our team has been getting questions. So I know Crystal and flag that so we can respond and let them know directly Excellent. Okay. Second update. We do Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm a little late chiming in but in terms of Commissioners schedules for the day there. There's there's not Much that we need to be prepared to be involved in on that day, right? No, correct It's very different from the launch on site Because there's no actual location to go to to inspect anything like that So just a different an animal in this kind of But the but to that point commission on Karen I think second director wells We just went over this on the nine We'll be looking to issue the certificates of operation. So all that testing and all will have been done Mr. Skinner, so that's that's where We give the go-ahead and then they get to turn the switch on 10 a.m. Eastern time Correct. Oh eastern standard time. That's a good point. I should make a Okay, uh, the second update is with respect to the operation certificates the plan For the night Would be that we would only bring before you the operation certificates For those operators that are prepared to launch on the tenth That allows gli to focus their energy and efforts on the ones that are ready to launch There's a couple that would not be ready to launch for several weeks after that We would bring those operation certificates Back in front of you at a later time. Just want to make sure you're clear on that process That helps gli and I think it just helps streamline the process going forward The the third update. I just want to make you aware Given, you know, that the commission has done some tweaking and thinking about Regs 254 on responsible gaming in 238 That does impact the review of the internal controls So gli have flagged that because when there's a change They have to test that they're they're looking at the internal controls with respect to the change So we're meeting with them this afternoon It we're going to come up with A solve or how to bring that Approval in front of the commission, but I just wanted You to be aware that Given that when regs change that also changes the look that gli is doing on the internal control So we'll be monitoring that it can give more of an update I don't know bruce if you have more of an update because you spoke to joe directly Yeah, it's just a couple little parts of it with the responsible gaming And the 10,000 part, you know, no more than that 10,000 dollar wager there that part Not being totally finalized It's hard for them to put a stamp of approval on it, but we can pinpoint whether where we are Prior to them approving the internal controls So it's little bits like that that they're having trouble finalizing in their internal control approval So we'll come up with sort of some More information at the meeting this afternoon But it it may be there's some sort of interim approval and then a final approval After the launch with respect to the newer version of the regulations In that short period of time but more to come I just did not want you to be not aware that that does impact gli's work Okay, and then Just the final update is other you know other than that issue and that affecting the the process a little bit We've gotten very positive results From the testing and from the reviews of the internal controls So we're not seeing any issues there and that seems to be moving along well, so I'll more information from you were you in the interim, but just wanted to make you aware of just opposite issues that are coming with that all the the mobile Prop companies that are moving forward. Everybody seems on target for the March 10th this point, so Hopefully things keep going smoothly Yeah Excellent Mina I think that the issue that GLI is raising am I right that today we're voting on those so Correct resolution today. However I must reserve the commission's right to be evaluate That's the beauty of regulations. We know that we need to have consistency for the operators and for our process, but you know I think we we know that We're always going to continue to listen and evaluate and tweak At the beginning, uh, so and Bruce is nodding his head because it probably seems familiar to him having opened so many casinos and And now in this in this industry, so So I'm sorry, can could you appreciate the ones? the numbers 254 and 238 and you know, I was just briefed by Bruce this morning, so I'm still learning exactly what the What they have to do before So that's the cooling off period in which we've got it. Okay. Got it. Yeah, and then the other one is 238 you said 238 there's just little parts in that that we've been discussing And haven't been finalized. So they were a little concerned because it's not final in certain parts As to how I prove it I I think we'll end up working it out But they were a little concerned with giving a final blessing on something that hasn't been finalized So we're going to we're going to resolve it today But that one if in my right came and that has to do with the issue that came up around kiosks and the And the the bat Limit and how I go to the window versus the kiosk I don't I don't I don't actually know what the particular issue is but that is something that could change Yeah Yeah That was the uh, those are That was a big discussion yesterday. All right And and the um why we asked for input Exactly So all right, so So many thanks to gli. They really have been tremendous And tremendously efficient in this short period of time So uh and flagging these these little issues so that we can resolve them before the launch is really really helpful So yeah No, and as I mentioned the agenda setting We are really grateful for everything they've done and and they were right there yesterday for us on that issue So thank you. Yeah commissioners anything you want to add to our ask of Karen Yep, just wanted to to make you aware of it. So That's good bruce And commissioners, do you have anything you want to ask or add? just Madam chair just kudos to the team And to everyone I know that it's been a real slog and everyone in gli and I think that it's you know, really going to be a benefit to the commonwealth that You know before one of the largest sporting events in the country march madness that Then it looks like everything's going to launch and so thank you karen thank you team Thank you So let's make it happen and turn to regulations, right? Sounds good. Okay Okay, so I think the best way is to kind of set the stage from yesterday There are some outstanding issues. There were rags that we hadn't looked at yesterday because they came in yesterday We could I think we decided we would go back and then move forward the new stuff Right, Mina Correct. Yeah, and and karen katlyn and todd. I don't know if you have any prefacing remarks If not, I can launch right into 138 and 238 I just wanted to mention that in terms of the packet it looks like the version attached to the meeting invite is yesterday's packet So I did circulate The updated packet to you just a couple of hours ago. So you have that will have the same page numbers for people Gary is the right packet online for members of the public to access I don't think anything is online yet. The last time I looked Well right now Trudy is without a laptop. So that's impacting her ability to be nimble the um I have a 246 page document. Is that the most up-to-date one? Uh, it's about 300. It's 301. It's the one I've got all right, so um Of course I was in transit last night. So, um If somebody could send I sent it this morning Kathy at um 9 57 To you if that is helpful. Oh And I wasn't looking at emails that no, of course I was Getting ready for the other meeting. Okay, so Um Madam chair, I could uh if it's helpful there's for at least these two there's only a handful of comments We're going to talk about I could do a screen chair as we're talking which might also help with the public Viewing of it. I I know it reduces Billy to see everybody's faces, but Um, well, yeah, it does but that's if I can I just need to get this on to um I need to find it Mina, so just bear with me sure it came from tour it came from carry right Not it. Yes. Yep. Okay chair if um a member of the legal team will uh shoot me the latest version. Um, that is uh That should be going up on the website. I'm happy to uh get that up there That'll be great. Just send it over right now. Thanks, Carrie Okay Thanks a village guys. Thank you so much Didn't start with um 205 138 Correct Just using my other device. That's why it's a little bit slow guys. Sorry. I can even read it. There we go Thank you for that So we're starting All right, uh, madam chair. Let me um both uh in light of Karen's comment and bruce's and your intro just Reorient everybody to to where we were as of yesterday on this one um As you might recall 138, uh, we had not received any comments prior to Uh late I guess monday night early yesterday. Um, so there weren't any uh, so there weren't many comments to talk about We then received Two sets two comments uh one about 130 five Regarding the issue of suspension or termination of an employee by an operator when they're suspended or terminated by a by by the bureau or the commission and the um, the uh data security Protocols in 138 73. We talked quite a bit about 105 yesterday, but not about 73 So I'm going to walk through uh, both of those Um at the outset, uh, we also had one small thing which I I apologize did not get picked up in the change So on page one of your packet, um the Red line there for gaming Will actually come out so it will just read uniform standards of accounting procedures and internal controls Reflecting the fact that this is for both gaming and sports wagers. So that's a I apologize for that error But that's that's a small fix um Also just as a reminder the red lines in this particular document I have to do because they're red lines on an existing regulation that's been in place They're not necessarily new As of even before yesterday or of yesterday we did try to highlight where we have changes Or changes to discuss um, so the first substantive comment is or first Point for discussion is 1308 05, uh, which is down at page 10 Um during the based on the comments we got this is 1308 05 D We had received a comment yesterday from draft kings Suggesting the language that you see highlighted in yellow here be at it Which is procedures that internal controls need to include procedures for terminating or suspending comma or modifying the relevant responsibilities of the employment of individuals licensed or registered Etc. Etc. Uh, if the commission Um provides notice that the registration or license has been Uh revoked suspended or denied um, we Pursuant to our conversation yesterday followed up with the IEB On this point and whether they uh had concerns with that particular change and they Did say that they they do have concerns With that change and would recommend against it a couple of things one. This has not been an issue With gaming operators. This was in the gaming regs before I think the concern to boil it down has to do really with the vagueness Of what exactly the modification of relevant responsibilities might be And that it might Lead to sort of an in if in when access needs to be cut off at a particular moment It may make it inefficient or difficult to know if if somebody is truly out of a network Or has met the responsibility to do that The uh fact that there is a procedure for suspension Not just termination. It was also something that came up.  It's simply that the person is suspended from from the duties here so While in practice this may mean that someone's assigned to a different portion of a company or or something else And that may be okay in a particular circumstance. They would prefer the language stay as it has in the past And not adopt this change for me So just to be clear because we we put the language here so that everyone could see it Well, we are proposing would be not to include the highlighted language on page 10 Um The only other set of changes that would come up for 138 205 138 are at the very end of the reg. So I'm going to be scrolling for a little bit here Um to age This is in the 90s No, actually a little before that So we had received several comments from two different entities about the new 138 73 When this this is a new addition all together to The internal controls regs that would have applied would apply to gaming and And sports wagering entities The nature of the comments ranged from a request to remove this all together and simply rely on On background data privacy laws there were suggestions One commenter noted that mass usage cyber security laws are still themselves in flux There was also concerns In the comments raised about particular details of this The legal team met yesterday afternoon to talk about what might be the best approach We wanted to strike a balance in our recommendation It's a strike of balance between making sure that there's adequate data security for For patron information But also not getting into an overly prescriptive Set of requirements that may not make sense in the particular contest context without having had adequate time to review The comments and really talk to the operators who made them and make sure we understand What would work instead? so our suggestion is to leave 138 73 1 and 2 effectively as is with one small change that i'll mention And strike the rest what that does is 138 73 1 sets out the basic standard that Which is actually captured in other regs as well that Personally identifiable information needs to be protected at least at the level that is required under state law under chapter 93 h and 201 cm r 17 And two requires a system of internal controls that That does that The remaining provisions have to do with details such as patron access to their information the use for of aggregated or anonymized excuse me data and Other and sort of the destruction of data when necessary All of which could still be in someone's data security plan And all of which we think would be appropriate to address perhaps in a separate reg But seeing as this not only affects sports wagering and gaming we did not want to We want to take seriously the comments that were made and not Delay the passage of this reg with the key provisions But But take a closer look at some of those other provisions in three through eight I will say there were really no No comments on one and two other than questions In about one whether personally identifiable information means the same thing as it does under state law The answer is yes, it does but we made that even clearer You'll see in sort of maroon font here in 178 38 73 1 As defined in mgl chapter 93 h and 201 cm r 17 to just make it absolutely clear that we're talking about the same so we We would propose coming back with revisions either to this reg or a separate reg with more detail and In the near future, but for the purposes of internal Controls at the moment Having a broader requirement. That's less prescriptive Interpreting So I mean, I did want to bring up for this group, but also for the legal team in particular. I recently had conversations with Jared reinheimer who's the head of the ag's data privacy and security division and he had questions for me about the apps The mobile predictor et cetera So if there's a way for your team to reach out to them as well Because I think their expertise and their thoughts on this would be helpful for everybody Absolutely, if there's a We in the legal team can talk about the best way to do that But between them and gli I think it would be worthwhile to have that conversation Richard brad Yeah, I know because I and they're um, like I said, they're particularly interested. I know they've reached out to at least one Licency to get a better sense of sort of the interface with the app and that sort of thing. So So Thank you anything else commissioners Any any objections to this being struck? No, we'll um, we just said okay, let's continue Madam chair, that's it for 138. So, um, in in just to reiterate that the three change the The one change or a substantive change would be the striking in 138 73 Um, of everything after 138 73 3 and forward That changed to the title of the reg to take out the words for gaming And then no change to 130 5 D other than there was a small type of graphical correction And we would not include the highlighted language in in 130 805 d. So this this one should be ready for a vote And in terms of looking at the new regs, they're in the packet um Correct. So, uh, it's the the pages one through Where I just was which I lost sorry 138 ends on page 79 Oh, I have 82 You correct. I'm sorry the last two pages are the The uh auto generated uh document compare that's that's why I didn't count that that's right. Yeah, that's fine Then 82 starts the regs And it looks like you've addressed all The new ones that came in here Correct. These were all new comments. There were no 130 805 was the first comment the rest were about 73 and as you'll see there was Comments to remove the whole thing and then A couple of clear questions about clarification. We talked about we didn't talk about these one by one yesterday But there were a couple of questions about clarification all the rest starting on page 87 of your packet you'll see I have to do with 138 73 Or subsequent sections and those would be removed for the time being So, uh, mr. Miller's um if the questions are no longer Except with respect to number one and to clarify I can I can answer those right now if it's helpful Uh, I had already answered number one the definition of personally identifiable information is the same as under state law that is um That is clarified in the in the change we made in today's packet Regardless of he'd had a question about we are unclear about the intent of the words regardless of residency Um I'm not exactly sure what he's getting out there because if you are doing business in massachusetts You have to comply with data security laws in massachusetts and that's so whether or not someone's in new hampshire resident Betting in massachusetts. They may they would still have to have their data protected is is uh, is the issue there The gaming licensee that's the questions about is it only sports raging that occurs in a physical sports book Um, what activities subject to regulation? I guess I'll just take it broadly this one would apply to gaming and sports wagering So everything And then the last question does does the regulation cover every non gaming activity that occurs anywhere Inside a gaming licensee's property The short answer to that is probably not I mean these are ultimately internal controls for the gaming establishment in the sports wagering facility. However Um, you know, for instance uses the example as a dining reservation or the purchase of a t-shirt or shop Typically what will be collected for that might be credit card data and again under state law They would have to protect that data if it has personally identifiable information or bank account information Any questions on those? All right, so we're going to move on then to the next reg We can do Should we um How do you want to do this? Should we act maybe on this now? Madam chair, can I just ask one question before we move on acting on it or not? And just a question for the team both the attorneys and then people on the technical side is Are you comfortable with the recommended? deletions in terms of addressing privacy protections that are required under the statute The the legal team is commissioner bryant. We we had that discussion I uh Anybody with gli can answer the other the technical part of it Joe's jumping on now. I was going to say I talked to joe briefly this morning, but joe go ahead Yes, we talked this morning and we are in alignment with um the recommendation from legal department Okay, thank you Madam chair. We have historically done these separate I think we should well, it's fresh in our mind. Uh, commissioner hill. I would welcome um emotion Well, then um with that said madam chair I move that the commission approved the amended small business impact statement in the draft of 205 cmr 138 as included in the commissioner's pack and discussed here today And further that staff be authorized to take steps necessary to file the required documentation For the secretary of the commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process second Thank you Any questions or edits on that motion? Michelle bryant that was an important question to ask before we went into this. So thank you Um, well knowing that we're coming back to revisit it made me a little more comfortable I think that's right, right? Okay I'll ask karen to keep track of that for us in addition to the legal team So with that we'll have Michelle bryant turn to christian bryant Hi Mr. Hill. Hi Mr. Skinner. Hi Mr. Maynard. Hi My vote yes Five zero. So we're all set. I move forward 205 cmr 138 gli check on that one There we go. Now we'll move to um We're going back to 238 correct lina Correct Okay, and that's on you, right? Yes. Um, so no, um, there were no additional comments beyond the ones we discussed yesterday The only additional comment received That was not originally in yesterday's packet. We did it rest yesterday. So so I won't go back through comments I will just outline and there were no really open issues. So this is just a review of the discussions we had yesterday uh for You know for finalizing this The first change this is this starts on page 100 of the packet. Uh, the first change is the Inclusion of the word additional at the outset of the reg for the name of this one. Um, which I think was Mr. Skinner's suggestion to make to make this clearer That this is for additional uh requirements for sports wagering um, and then the next change There are a couple of changes. I can I can go through some of the other changes we discussed and wherever where everybody was okay with yesterday If it's helpful just to reorient folks is that I think so 238 This one is another long one 238 18 starting on page 16 and really the changes are start on the bottom of page 17 starting on page I'm sorry 115 and 116. I apologize. Thank you. The bottom of the page number Thank you so much. No problem. Um These changes were uh, the ones requested Having to do with sharing of information with governing with the sports governing bodies and the And and I think we discussed all these all these were okay yesterday but the changes on pages 115 116 and 17 all Are in that vein some of them do come and we talked about the comments that led to those yesterday Um, so no new changes there uh, the next Set of changes comes on I'll make sure I don't miss any Um to 38 32 which is at page 127 um, this was similar um a I think if you recall we uh, broadened and aligned the term subcontractor qualifier To match up with other regs um the this is also the requirement That a sports an employee of a sports wager and operator for example Cannot place a wager not just on their category one licensee, but also on the tethered app was was the purpose of us um Of course a category two, but just thinking of what's in place today um The following set of changes Page 129 in addition A reference to what 205 cmr 152 Which I think was was not We didn't have much discussion on that yesterday, but I think everyone was okay with that um Now on page 30 excuse me 130 is the first Thing that was not we talked about yesterday, but it's not in the packet Um, there's a very small but but meaningful change in 238 35 removing the word only to clarify that the list of reasons for canceling A val a placed wager are mandatory In one a through K On the following page The next change is on page 133 Um, this is the kiosk discussion um, and so This just reflects Just just to kind of reiterate the conversation The question was whether or not to allow The placement of a wager at a kiosk that may result in In A payout of $10,000 or more the collection of that payout and actually cashing out the the payout would still happen at the ticket window um To recap the discussion yesterday, uh the The original concern here was anonymity and potentially somebody not um You know trying to evade tax or other obligations. However, as was clarified during yesterday's conversation Um, this is actually no different in terms of the anonymity at the ticket window when the wagers placed The request requirements for information happen at the um At the back end when the payout is made So Deleting this language would allow A wager to be placed at a kiosk that could result in a greater than $10,000 payout But would not allow because of item a Um, and just simply the process that's in place for how payouts are made You would still have to go at the window to actually get your money So I don't know if this first do you see now with a struck language. That's pretty clear There is one outstanding issue that I think sterile raised under 2a They're prohibited from issuing or redeeming the key at the kiosk sports wagering voucher with a value in excess of 10,000 But yesterday the number 5,000 came up with respect to tax implications Is that number right? Is it should it be 10 or should it be fine? Mr. O'Brien, did you you know I think of the same issue or I was thinking the same issue in terms of um a what that number should be and then b um Something for us to put on the rag review running list is the concept that To be more aggressive in compliance with delinquent child support and track tax implications is Do we want to discuss putting more protections in so there's no anonymity to the bets that could trigger that requirement? But in the short term Yeah, my question has to do with the dollar amount on this right Yeah, so I think we've got it on the rag whether we develop those additional I think we'd love to see some we'd love to see some technical Uh evolution for the kiosk So i'll go back to the uh legal team. Have you explored the the amount payment? So there are a couple there's a there's a statute that says that if A payout is going to be five thousand if it's five thousand dollars and the terms of the payout Were at least 300 to one It has to go through the intercept process Um, and so we could absolutely consider Incorporating that I haven't thought it all the way through but we can consider incorporating that in this To make sure we're capturing that as well. Although it already is a statute. It's already being done. We have looked into that piece of it Oh The 301 is familiar. But where was it? It's somewhere in the rag. Isn't that a different rag? It's in chapter 23 and but it's you have to look at the internal revenue code to get the $5,000 piece That's why it's complicated But it seems to me and the reason I hadn't said anything is because I think it's captured in paragraph b Where it talks about limits set by the irs And that's I mean, I assumed that was referencing the intercept amount Well, let's be clear creating confusion by nine So we could we could say we could actually Because chapter. I'm sorry. It's chapter 23 and section It's the last section. I can't quite get My internet's not working But it's um, we can put in the specific section Um in 23 and that talks about the intercept So you basically the $10,000 is the money laundering Um Threshold and then the other issue is the $5,000 at 300 to 1 which is the Tax withholding slash intercept threshold. So those are I think the two thresholds that you're concerned with that you want to reference here So this is critical for gli, right? um In my right that gli is already planning on the 5,000 with 300 The one because they already have that because it's a statutory provision. There you are joe. Good morning Good morning. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. No morning. Go ahead Good morning been there been there. Yeah. Good morning Yeah, uh, no, I'm in some California. So, um, yeah, I was just there yesterday. So that's oh, okay okay, uh so the reference is to the as Todd alluded to the Stabilization by the irs Both things need to be true 300 300 to 1 Caitlyn as Caitlyn mentioned and Uh, I believe the irs is the 5,000 mark, right Caitlyn um, correct and this is This is standard throughout the industry how it's um triggered because of that qualification on the federal level So commissioner o'brien's point should our reg reflect that with the understanding the irs could change the threshold amount at any time for the Michelle brian Yeah, so now that i'm looking at a and b um I'm a little confused. Why are we reiterating the reiterating the 10? I'm just wondering if we need to be more specific if it's the 5k and 300 to 1 consistent with the irs code And then the 10k is the aml SARS Should you have those listed separately? Strauss got his hand up. I don't know. Yes, 10,000 is correct. I mean you are correct 10,000 is and it is Exactly 10,000 and then it's actually the wording is over. So a penny, right? So that's what the ctr's and the sars are going to kick in right? Exactly, that's that's for the for the the ctr reporting right, so so to write the red perfectly to Do we include both or do we do we do the lower threshold and include irs? Requirements, what do you think? We need to do both because it's not just a 5000. Sorry. Sorry. It's a five and a 301 Or in the other circumstances the 10k or up. That's what I think too. So kind of Caitlyn now Because because we will be voting on this it would be nice if we have some degree of certainty around the language right No, give or take I think there's another wrinkle Am I correct in understanding that the threshold amount for d or Child support purposes is $1,200 That's right back this morning. Machines so that's not this Okay, and so this is not applicable To sports wagering because the commission hasn't made it applicable to sports wagering. Is that right? Uh, not exactly. So the there's federal law that talks about when you have a essentially That an event that requires either tax reporting or withholding Massachusetts has tethered The intercept for tax and child support checks to that So that once the casinos or operators are checking anyway Massachusetts has said you also have to check this So if you look at 23 and section like 18 or what have you it references The internal revenue code And it says when that happens you also have to do this So that's where the $5,000 and 300 to one comes into play But it is important to remember Caitlyn just said this but it's important to remember It's not either $5,000 or 300 to one. It has to be both. Yeah. Yeah, we can yeah And that's why you need the 10,000 On the one hand and then the intercept the tax level on the other Okay, but the question is should it be five? I guess that's what I'm 10 Rather than the 10 when you're relating to the irs code because it appears to be a five And a 300 to one not a 10. That's what I'm confused about Well Oh, sorry I'm just going to reiterate that like you could bet $9,999 and when 10,000 in a penny And that would trigger the $10,000 I'm not I'm fading the legal term. I haven't had enough coffee AML At the irs level thank you, and The $5,000 and 300 to one is a separate Right, I think we understand that's the point. That's separate now One second for sure, Brian. I'm going to turn to Mina because I know that Mina's hearing this We need let we need Probably some fixing on a and b. What would be your recommendation Mina? So I think there's two questions. One is a policy question of whether you want to just lower the 10,000 to 5,000 to capture More of these or or not. So that's just one question. But let me just just finish on the second I don't think we're here. I don't think we're saying that I think we understand it's 5,000 plus the 300 to one And then we understand it's the 10,000. So we probably need two provisions It's probably be is so messy because it says in excess of 10,000. It looks redundant I'm in 5,000. I would not change the or in excess of limits set by the irs They they are right. They are five because they are particular today, but we don't know where they are Any given day, so I would leave that language as is What it says now is issue a redeem a sports wagering voucher with a value in excess of 10,000 Or issue a payout in excess of 10,000 A very simple fix to all of this I I just to propose would be to have it all in one Place to say issue or redeem a sports wagering issue redeem a sports featuring Excuse me or redeem a sports wagering voucher Or pay out with a value in excess of 10,000 dollars as a and for b Issue a payout In excess of limits set by the irs simply to have one be the irs limited one be the 10,000 So you can separate off the two and that's that's so that the irs can change and and whatever the current situation is for media And that's the 300 the 300 to one is our statute That's the irs code, right? Yeah, that's the internal revenue code, which is kind of applicable by our statute Oh, it doesn't actually say the three That provision. Okay. Yeah, fine. We're good then Can I ask the commissioner skinner's point? Can you just give me a little more clarity on Todd the Where the commission stands in terms of What's the line we have drawn in terms of capturing? Child support. I'm just trying to understand Is that something that's another policy question that's in front of us or could be in front of us or Because it seems like we have the potential to capture That as well in a different threshold than what we're talking about in A&B Um No, we should Yeah, I don't I think the again unfortunately my internet's not working So I can't pull up the exact language here if someone can find it. It's the last section of 23 and That the statute sets the threshold for us Um, so I don't think you need to move it at all. It's kind of the well settled Level at which they're they have to run they have to issue a w2g anyway Under federal law for anyone who hits that threshold So it's it's a convenient time to also run a query as to whether the person owes taxes or child support If you were to reduce it it would result in more queries I believe and what's it's sorry. What's the threshold that again? Is it the 10? No, it's five thousand and three hundred two one Okay, so it's the IRS Yeah, so the 10,000 is totally different. That's the no that's the aml So I I guess what we're not seeing are the words child support Or taxes, but what you're saying is that with the The revised b we're going that's going to get them to the window where they will be looked at for the child's support As well as tax liability commission scanner commissioner bryan Is there a reg that cross references that in? Can you take it and if you don't have the site in front of you child? That's fine I'm just curious what what our reg is that then make sure that's triggered and make sure we're not missing anything In terms of making an applicable of a sports wagering payout Yeah, I um, I don't have it right in front of me I do recall seeing that we do have a reg that requires I want to say might be in 138 where they have Intercept procedures in place. That's also of course governed by the mo use that will be negotiating separately, but I do think we cover it somewhere I'm 38 56 56 thing Let's see if we can Will somebody read that to us, please It's it's an ic requirement that they that they That they list their procedures for running intercepts So that's on It's page 67 of our packet from today Reluctant to scroll 60 30 I've got it My number changing is not very nimble here. There we go 67 This makes repeated references to slots, but you're telling me that the the language incorporates this Payout Actually, um commissioner brian that that is specific to gaming licensees. It's 238 238 No, 238 15 and 238 16 The number's not what page is what page is that in our packet? I'm getting oh page 140 144 This is where we put um This so 238 15 which has not changed today is uh compliance For all tax withholding um ensure compliance with irs requirements But it doesn't mention child support which is different. No Is that a withholding uh required by dor in sub one? I don't believe the word's child support Uh, here's the gaming side either right sterl So it appears in the statute in the last section that child support and then it references the um Code number by the uh federal government for taxes, which I have On my screen if you want me to share That todd was looking for but it says in general except as provided in sub paragraphs b and c proceeds of more than 5,000 from a wagering transaction if the amount of such proceeds is at least 300 times as large as the amount wagered No And that's for all And the b and c is for lotteries and then sweepstakes Yeah And then in the statute child support is in the last provision 23 and sterl Yes, so that in the statute it's in section a of Uh 24 it states prior to an operator's disbursement of a cash Or a prize that is subject to withholding under the section. I just read section 3402 of internal revenue the operator shall review information made available by the 4d agency as set forth in chapter 119 a and by the department of revenue to determine if a winner Of a cash or prize owes any pass do I? child support to the commonwealth or to an individual To whom the 4d agency is providing services or to Tax liability to the commonwealth So it's the same five 300 to one trigger Yes, correct Yeah, and and just to reiterate the the portion of 238 36 that we're talking about which is on page 133 This just has to do with what a kiosk can do without going to the window. So this is It does it does capture all that But is is really just an additional check on it as opposed to what happens at the way down So me that eliminating be there would allow a kiosk To accept an anonymous sports major with a potential payout in excess of $10,000 and that's okay from a policy perspective because operators retail operators require The patron to claim their winnings at the window Do we have that right correct commissioner skitter and as does The right yes as does section subsection a and what used to be subsection c which will not be b So so what you what happens If we keep being commissioner skitter Then you can't place that a three dollar bet if it's going to result in something over 10,000 of the kiosk They have to place it at the window which Might make sense if there are additional identifiers, you know taking care of the anonymity but there really isn't at the window Right And that that's to me maybe for something down the road if there's a way to you know, I think about you go skiing and they go I'm taking a picture now. So when I check you later, I make sure you're this is really you on the card If there's something later on technologically that a kiosk or window allows you to make it not anonymous That's great But they can't get they can't get their winnings no matter they can't they can't get the payout without the check They can't get it if it goes over 10 grand. Yeah So That's why it makes Otherwise the individual gets to the kiosk gets to the kiosk line gets in there places up You know decides. Oh, I want place bet and sees it's going to trigger 10 over 10,000 They have to step out and go to a new line Got it Yeah Nina I'm going to nitpick for a second here Can we change issue to issuance and redeem to redemption just so that So that's that's yes, that's correct I I am happy with that nitpicking in that in that case that makes sense. Um, so madam chair May I just read a and new b one more time and I think Um, so this would read the sports wage. I'll just read all of two the sports wager and operator shall ensure sports wager and kiosk are Configured to prohibit the following issuance or redemption of a sports wagering voucher Or payout with a value in excess of $10,000 semi colon be issuance or redemption of a sports wagering voucher or payout in excess of limits set by the irs period Everyone okay with that Could you just read b for me again? Nina? I'm sorry sure issuance Or redemption of a of a sports wagering voucher or payout in excess of limits set by the irs Okay, so they would be parallel except for the last part Because the irs limits could be changing as we speak. Yes, and I should just say and there'll be an and in between I was going to ask is it a and or an or okay, good That's really helpful and and that's important for gli karen for today. We understand um How's the team feeling about that legal and sports division. Thank you sterile for all your input Okay Okay sterile as long as you guys are good Thank you sterile all right, um should we continue Sure, madam chair. That's actually it for 238. So I thought so Yeah, that was my notes too Do you want me to briefly review the changes for today or should we or we set? Um, the the changes that we just went through just went through. Yeah Commissures, there were only a couple. Are you okay with the ones that he went through? I'm all set too. Commissioner skinner. You all set Michelle brownie's nodding her head. Mr. Maynard. Okay. No, I think we're good. Mina. It's great. Thank you taking taking notes along the way Hey um So that brings us to the end of that packet. I mean of that rag is what page The end of that rag is on page 139 the comments follow. We talked about all the comments yesterday So there's no new comments. Yeah, no new comments. So there we go So that commissioners and that was a really important conversation to have I mean we solved it with a little bit of best Do I have a motion on that one? Madam chair, I move that the commission approve the amended small business impact statement in the draft of 205 cm r238 As included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today And further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file a required documentation With the secretary of the commonwealth to finalize the regulation formulation process second Any edits questions Okay, commissioner bryan. Hi Mr. Hill. Hi Mr. Skinner. Hi Commissioner Maynard. Hi And I vote yes There thank you to gli. I know that that was a tricky discussion yesterday for that. So thank you All right, Nina or katelyn or kary or todd If it's all right if we could take 254 next a little bit out of order just to accommodate attorney mackey's schedule today Oh, he's back Good afternoon attorney mackey. Yes, looking at 254 temporary prohibition. So the Some sports poetry including on page 211 of your packet Thank you And Is I understand it what The agenda is for now is to go through the the new the new public comments that we didn't have an opportunity to review Yesterday just to have a brief discussion about those to see if there's any any further Edits that we'd want to make to the the cooling off rag So we've we've reviewed the new public comments carefully. I think those start on 215 of the packet if i'm not mistaken That's right. Uh, and there are five Comments that that we didn't have in time for the meeting yesterday Three of which have been already addressed and two of which might deserve some discussion so The first is a comment to 254 point o two three Comment from draft kings that an acknowledgement Uh by the patron Isn't necessary here with respect to The the things that they would not be able to do during a temporary cooling off period that an acknowledgement shouldn't be necessary And that it just be you know notification to the patron of the things they'd be unable to do during the cooling off period I think the uh General consensus having talked it through with Mark and others that you know an acknowledgement by the patron is is a significant step and the patron's more likely to understand Uh things that they'd be unable to do during the cooling off period If not only do they see the conspicuous notification, but also acknowledge the contents of the notifications, so I Don't think that we're recommending we make a change based on that comment then uh The second comment on 254 o three one uh Suggests this comment from fan dual suggesting that we be more flexible about the specific time frames were We're uh allowing for the cooling off period and we've addressed that this was the We had initially had 72 hours a week two weeks three weeks or four weeks and now we're making that timeframe flexible uh so uh then the next comment uh also from draft kings is that uh The the cooling off period that the the patron should not be able to extend the cooling off period During the cooling off period timeframe, but only at the conclusion of the cooling off timeframe. Uh, I think the The the view from from mark is that uh, no a patron should be allowed to extend a cooling off period You know and really take advantage of any of any of the responsible gaming tools At any time and shouldn't simply be restricted to extending it once the cooling off period is ended So, uh Uh, can I ask the question did we explore that with gli to see is there a technical issue there or Is that why I'm not aware of that? that we that we did I think the The consensus on that was simply that we want to make these play management play management type tools responsible gaming tools of patrons You know Take advantage of them Yeah, so I'm not questioning the I'm not questioning the policy underlying policy because that's very clear to me Dave. I'm just wondering Is that Is that Are we unique in Expecting that um because I'm just wondering why they raised that joe. Do you know the uniqueness question or to have to research? um to give a definitive answer Do you understand the issue In other words Does if you're a patron, do you have to wait for your 72 hour to include in order to technically be able to extend the cooling off period is Most apps built that way reason why we're wondering Dave. We don't want to have a compliance issue you know, that's sort of unintentionally for march 10th, although We may want to um, you know, depending on how the commission thinks about this issue today So what what the comment specifically? Says madam chair is that allowing renewal During the cooling off period would require that an individual access the account Which would violate 205 cm r 255 04 254 2 but we've now amended that piece so that You you can access your account during the cooling off period specifically to Uh, you know engage in these responsible gaming tools or to withdraw your money. So It no longer would be a violation Uh of the cooling off period for you to access your account to extend the cooling off period So we we've resolved that the second piece of this I just I'm sorry, but I can't add much value here as they say it would require customer experience teams to manually manage an individual self-imposed limits and uh I It doesn't sound like they're saying that it would be impossible. It just sounds like they're saying it would be So we've eliminated the prohibition into that prohibition. Um Isn't unique that I mean that That was unique to the industry. So in other words The patron can always access their account and change. I guess I just want to know that that a patron Can always change their often post limit we have addressed That in 254 021 where we describe what the temporary What the temporary prohibition is Uh, you can't place wagers on your sports You can't make deposits into your account. You can't place wagers on the platform But you can do other things with respect to your account. For example You know with throwing funds that are there or you know, taking advantage of these other other responsible gaming tools I'm just going to turn a gli and they're I'm not disagreeing with anything. Mr. Mackey said I just wondered is there are there any Is there any tech issues that you're thinking of that the Whereas this this is just nothing we have to worry about In regards to the functionality Most there's most certainly a development or change window that would have to occur If these Regulations required such a change Okay, so just to make sure I got the change right I'm in I had chosen one week pulling off period and as I near that one week, but I haven't completed that one week. I decided I want to extend it to four weeks that right now isn't the technical norm Because you sort of have to wait for that conclusion of the one week Then to extend it to another four weeks or two or another three weeks As for the norm again, I'd have to research that to come back I don't have my living library. Mike Robbins available at this time. He's on vacation You're living my But from my extensive experience in Uh application management on the digital side Uh, I would imagine that those that exact functionality was most likely not available immediately and would require a technical change Okay, so can I make a suggestion Dave? Can we pause on this and Karen can and Karen and team can try to figure out if this is a tech issue That we would need to give some relief because I think mark would say I think that's what david is saying It's a good policy You may not suspend it forever. We want it. But do we give relief? For launch if it's a real There's a real tech issue. Okay. I've done enough talking commissioners. What are you thinking? Are you in agreement with me or do you not care? Disagree whatever because I I'm just I'm trying to Get a handle on this. Sorry. I was looking. Is this are they the only ones who raised this issue? Yes, this is the only comment we got on this issue and it doesn't appear None of the other operators are saying this is a problem. So I guess I'm I'm wondering why they're the only one that says this is an issue. I don't read, uh drop king's comment as It is from draft kings, right? Uh, yes, that's right. Uh, yes, I don't read it as you know that they're seeing a Technological problem with it. It's just that they're saying It would require the patron to access their account which is Not prohibited under our regs. They just can't place the wager. So I don't see an issue there The other piece of it if the patron isn't accessing their account It sounds like draft kings is saying that a member of their team would have to manage that extension on behalf of the patron So either one of those options It sounds like Is doable for draft kings at least so I'm not hearing that there's a technological problem And so I would I mean I would just assume leave the language as is Unless you know That's that's kind of how I was thinking it too. But um I mean unless there's some additional Unless there's additional I'll say my the reason why I raised it was because I just want to make sure there isn't one I think you're quite right. Commissioner skin. I'm not seeing that. I just want to make sure because We've learned kind of after the fact A few times that it's more technically Um the technical challenge that they might not be able to switch But I I agree with you in terms of how interpreting them the language So that's what I'm just hoping it's like no I was hoping yeah I like to add that like I I could get a definitive answer. My answer is obviously not definitive um if Give me a little bit of time. Yeah, and I can I can find out but I will note that if They are the only operator that has made a comment at this that That is certainly a note to uh take forward Because if it was universal as you'd hear it all about it like some of the others I also I like the clarity. I'd like the clarity as quickly as possible and I'm across my fingers. It's just a no Okay, um But if it's something else that would be uh helpful for us to know the reason why I'm I'm sort of not so stuck on the fact that only draft king's respond is because we are working on this um rag in real time and they may have Then the ones who just got to it. Uh, so um, I just I'd like to cross it out the list if it's possible Thanks Thanks, joe. He's going to work All right, so otherwise commissioners you have no concern about the the uh, the The recommendation Madam chair Thank you Okay Then we go on Dave to the next and we'll just see uh, joe circles back Uh, just two more comments, but I think both have been addressed. Uh, one from graph kings one from fan dual again, this relates to the the the The notification provision that says as you approach the end of the going off period you get a notification that you're approaching the end they You know for the reasons that have been discussed think that uh That that could actually and you know create sort of anticipation and excitement about being able to engage in sports wager again And it's not a good idea So I think the decision was we'd remove the notification provision obviously subject to the the round table On the issue that mark was describing yesterday questions Okay, and then the next Okay, and I think that's uh, that's it as I say five comments, uh two new issues and three that Have been addressed during the discussion, Mr. There is also a letter from fangirl in here. Um That addresses the again the notification and duration Um issues which again, we've we've amended the regulation to eliminate those requirements Any questions for carry on that Karen, we just have the comment On that and not the letter just to set the body of the letter It's on page 2 19 of your package. Oh, thank you. Let's scroll down. Okay Maybe you're all set then I think so, uh I think so. I guess on the on the one issue. I just Suggest this one point about the ability to To extend the cooling off period in the midst of the cooling off period I as I read As I read the comments and I I know this this may be worth further discussion as I read their comment. I think they're concern about extending the cooling off period During the cooling off period related to The previous version of the regulation that prohibit somebody from accessing the account During the cooling off period and that the changes that we Discussed yesterday to that where you still can access the account for certain purposes May have addressed this concern of draft kings. It's I agree with that Whether it's a technical or But it might just be And I do think as I'm thinking about the assessments that commissioners helped me out When they talked about extending You could you can't you could never go backwards. Of course. I remember that discussion Um, but could you extend by having to can't go through Their team to extend Do you remember that um as we we um had the demonstrations They of course never wanted you to go backwards and and we we couldn't Or maybe you had to do something special if you wanted to reduce it You just couldn't is that right commissioners net as you can't say it was a minimum 24 hours Or whatever you set right once you set it you couldn't Drop it Could you extend it is that is that helpful for my memory At any point in time you could extend I don't recall if you could go in and extend Prior to the expiration. I don't remember. Yeah, I don't remember that that's the only thing I'm thinking about Dave just to make sure we Joe's got his hand up We got a lot of gli folks. Yeah, so so We made some calls and kevin and joe collin have joined us They're very limited time window So I'd like to go back to address the question From earlier if we could re-ask it for kevin and joe Joe collin the senior director of engineering kevin mulally our general counselor Go ahead Dave. Okay. You want to so I get the question is should uh a a patron be allowed to extend their cooling off period During a cooling off period anytime during a cooling off period or Should they be required to wait until the cooling off period is expired Before they're able to Renew it or if I could just reframe that briefly you're saying it should like it's a policy question I think the issue is completely technical and a patron Who was in the middle of a cooling off period extend Yeah It's a good question Yes, it's a good question that so I do want to be careful about terminology typically cooling off period when we use that terminology within regulations responsible gaming controls That's specific to the time after you set a limit and you look to increase that limit or Decrease that exclusion.  Usually we're talking about That will not take effect for You know the 72 hours that's defined by regulation And that's not that's that's a hard to find number and that's always from the the previous transaction But I think what we're talking about here is self-exclusion So if I'm excluding myself from the website Or apps for a period of say a week and I want to extend that out to two weeks Does the patron have the ability to come in and self exclude for a longer period of time Is that Is that the correct? I think it's cooling off Versus self-exclusion. I mean you're not talking about the voluntary self-exclusion program. Are you Joe? Because we're talking about the cooling off periods Okay, so cool cooling off periods typically a defined set of time that is from a point of which you um Set a limit to which you can change that limit So in that and that's defined typically defined in regulation And this is just the the way that it um, it exists across US today So any departure from that would be a very big structural change But basically it's to say if I set a limit of a hundred dollars My cooling off periods 72 hours. I cannot make a change to that limit that would change it up In meaning to 150 to 200 dollars So that I can deposit more money For a period of time that's hard coded set by regulation as soon as that cooling off period is done Then I can make adjustments to that limit if I so choose if I make an adjustment lower It happens immediately and as soon as I make an adjustment lower The cooling off period now resets and is that defined period again from the point of which you Make that change Similarly, if you make a change to 150 now, there's a cooling off period that said you take you Sorry, let me go back to the example. So you set 172 hour cooling off period defined by regulation hard number You go through that 72 hours and you say I want to increase that limit from 100 to 150 Now a new 72 hours takes effect. So I can't change that from 150 to 200 Until that defined set, but that's never variable It's not something that the player typically has any control over is even really aware of It's something that's defined behind the scenes in regulation And is only notified to the player to say Look, you're trying to increase the limit And you know that you've already set You're not able to do so until this timer goes down Does that help address the the question? Can I just I'll I'll say how I'm confused I think we were really thinking only about Time away from The platform and it sounds like you're also involving the limit on the wager amount So I think so Whether it's a limit or an exclusion If you want to It actually doesn't apply it doesn't apply to the exclusion exam And this is where again the cooling off period is typically talking about those limit changes and in that Like think about it before you actually You know decide to increase So that you know You don't set a limit and then you immediately can just reset it that removes the power of the control When it comes to exclusions And that's where you're talking about time away I want I want to be away from from the site for for a set period of time. You can always add to those You can always add Yeah, that's that voluntary exclusion process and and You should be able to access the site and withdraw funds and be able to change that exclusion amount But you just wouldn't be able to do anything else Kevin's got his hand up. So I'm going to turn to Kevin. Hi. Hello everybody. It's been a while. I've been on the road a bit Um, so Joe just let let me frame the policy issue And then I'll turn back to Joe on the technology because it involves my understanding Of the issue is that the rule? essentially hard codes the options It says you can do 72 hours one week two weeks three weeks four weeks, etc And the comment from at least one of the operators was You know, that's not really the way our system works. We have all those And we've gotten rid of the actual we've gotten rid of the time. Okay. We took care of that So now Dave Mackie is framing me took care of that. We took care of the prohibition So now the only thing we're wondering and it's really just my simple question If I'm the patron and I established a You know Three week cooling off period don't want it don't want to go on the platform at all Not voluntary self-exclusion, but just that three week period Can I You know on week two Is there is there any technical challenge to increasing it to four weeks? Yeah, as long as you know the the universe is set for like by regulation Yeah, and I'll let Joe answer the technology part of that my guess but The research as I understand it Is fairly consistent in that you should provide The gambler with as many options as possible because nobody's path to recovery is the same And and a one-size-fits-all you have to go this way Is not preferable But Joe, I don't know and I think mark panel linen would agree and then I think that that mr. Mackie also Commodities, so I'm just asking is it a tech issue at all? It must not be if everybody understands that Yeah, it shouldn't be a tech issue Release that Yeah, shouldn't should not be tech should not be a tech issue to increase Excellent Yeah, that's all I needed. Yes I Thank you, and I apologize. I was in another meeting just popping in here Um, yes options are good simplicity is also good And so making enrollment as clear and easy as possible with as few clicks as possible Is what is really important the original requirement of providing a limited Option is really to kind of create that the fewest clicks possible The easiest enrollment possible if we're able to give options to patrons and make it easy I would I would support that I I also think that Allowing individuals to extend their cooling off while they're still in that cooling off not at that period When it's over and they're just one click away from placing a bet when they're instilling that Cooling off cool state of mind Giving them that option is variable Yeah, so I don't think anybody is I think we're all on board for Policy, but we need to we need to revisit that so I had nothing to do with the great the policy behind I just wanted to know Before we signed off and that it would not present any tech challenge and it sounds like it's not going to which is I'm glad. Sorry again. No, no that but mark We knew where you were coming from and dave mac you did a great job Relaying your position so but thank you and and thank you kevin. So Mystery has been solved No tech issue Thank you. Thanks so much And gli. Thank you Is that you just scrambled really fast for me and I appreciate it With that, I'm going to allow like I'll let joe dismiss himself here because I know that he's under Yes schedule And everybody I'll I'll be here. Okay. Yeah, commissioner kevin as well follow-up questions for joe counten I think we're all set, right Thank you. Thank you so much joe. Yeah, thank you. Absolutely Go right ahead just in light of your comment about, you know, perhaps the comment from draft kings crossed with the changes that we saw yesterday and This set of regulations I want to renew commissioner o'brien's requests from yesterday to add the date to these comments Because I think it would be really helpful and we might have um ascertained. I mean It just might have been easier to get kind of get to the better understanding of The timing of the comment I think I might have asked for the date. I think that was me. So thank you Commissioner, commissioner o'brien, I think I was the highlight requester. Oh, okay. Yeah. She's a highlight And I'm I was the date because it does add a little context Yeah, well, thanks to both of you because it would be helpful if our legal team could spin that We'll certainly do both moving forward. Um, there was obviously quite a backlog of comments that We didn't really have time to handle yesterday, but moving forward. We'll be sure to do both of those things Yeah, thank you so much Okay So I'm not took care of that day. Sorry. It was a diverted, but I just wanted to make sure we didn't cause something Um with that inadvertently so All right, so is there anything else on that on that? we've gone through the the five new comments, uh and I I think we had an opportunity just to discuss them all I'm sorry five plus the the fan dual letter, which was duplicative of the Issues that we discussed yesterday. Yeah yeah Okay commissioners any further questions then on this one on on 254 You certainly have looked at it and and thought about it a lot and have they We also had real time input from the the applicants so If not, there are no questions. Do we have a motion? Yes, madam chair I would move that the commission Approved the amended small business impact statement in the draft of 205 cm r254 as included in the commissioners packet And discussed here today and further that the staff be authorized to take the steps necessary To file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process second Don't commit this getter any questions or That's No, I'm sure brian I'm excuse me I Not commissioner hill I Commissioner skinner I Mr. Maynard And I vote yes, so fives there on that. Thanks everyone for tolerating my question. All right So now We move back to 27 right Here That's right and paul commoners will will pick this one up for us Hi paul, and if you can direct us to the right page, that would be great Good afternoon commissioners. The first thing we're going to discuss appears on page 169 Thank you Nelson We're right ahead We're going to withdraw this recommendation so on Further review of this regulation the comment main in ohio's corresponding regulations and the advertising regulation We realize that what we think is causing some confusion for ben mgm and what was causing some confusion on our end as well Is that this Regulation requires in its first sentence that material terms be disclosed in one fashion that all terms be disclosed in a different fashion And in the last sentence sets out a list of terms that must be disclosed without specifying whether that's the list of material terms or the list of all terms After reviewing man's regulation which commissioner bryan is correct does require that all material terms be disclosed on the face of the advertisement It appears that this list is the list of all terms that must be disclosed and that the regulation does not Does not define the list of material terms However, there is a provision in 256 that does appear to set out A list that functions as a list of material terms and so Given that this is not Does this does not appear to create the problem that that mgm was concerned about and that we would want to make any changes here To the list of two define a list of material terms In parallel with changes to 256 We are no longer recommending this change and we'll take another look at the list of material terms Along with 256 when it comes back. I believe later this month Thank you for looking going back and looking at the other states the other jurisdictions pearl questions for pearl Michelle bryan I just want to make sure i'm following this to say 169 in the packet That's correct to 47.092 the language in there, right? Correct It was main A main I look to the main in ohio main is the main is the most relevant. I have it up Likely to share my screen But in in short main use main Requires the disclosure quite a of a quite similar list But it breaks out the provisions that list the That that established the list of all terms that must be disclosed before a patron accepts a promotion And includes the similar list there and it has a separate subsection that requires the list of all That requires disclosure of all material terms on the face of the promotion Questions comments. Okay, what else to be helpful? That's it, right? We have two new comments on page one. Well one one comment with two parts on page 172 yeah We do not recommend any changes in response to these comments. The first comment Is in the first comment that mgm expresses its opposition to A requirement for tier one for the use for A requirement for the use of official league data for tier one wagers I've reread the regulation. I don't believe the regulation requires tier one Requires official league data to use for tier one wagers and the particular place they propose removing the language Tier one sports wagers and From is a sentence that says Except as otherwise provided they may Operators may use any and all data sources approved by the commission in effect So this removing this language would give less flexibility than they currently have The second Proposal is to not require the licensure as sports wagering vendors of providers of data sources We we think it's important for regulatory purposes the providers of data of data the license the sports wagering vendors and in fact The definition of sports of sports wagering vendor in 205 cm or 202 Includes entities providing data to operators. So we don't recommend adopting this comment either Questions for Paul on that one For the other Okay, the next That's everything on 247. Yeah, mr Okay So commissioners in terms of 247 Any further questions that you didn't address yesterday? We really didn't have any other changes, right? Is that one? I wasn't there at the beginning? Yes, we we did add a provision requiring operators to provide We're going to pass rules that were previously in effect to patrons and that's on 156 That would be the only change if you're taking out the other one, right? The only substantive change there are there are a few fixes to typos and cross-references and Missing and one Yeah instance where the word transaction was missing So commissioners, are we ready to move on this or do you have questions for Paul in cheating I'll take a motion Madam chair, I move that the commission approved the amended small business impact statement in the draft 205 cm or 247 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today And further that's happy authorized to take the steps necessary to follow the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth To finalize the regulation promulgation process Okay And for the questions or edits Okay, mr. O'Brien Hi Mr. Hill Hi Mr. Skinner Hi Mr. Maynard Hi And I vote yes 5 0 excellent 248 Who's met who's going to handle 248? You're stuck with me again madam chair I like that well Let's see No, bring me to the right page again, please 248 picks up on page 186 Our first substantive edit appears on page 188 What is this not letting me edit page? Okay Turning to 188 Go ahead Paul. Thank you So as a reminder, just to make sure everyone is properly situated 205 cm or 248 governs the creations maintenance suspension and abandonment of patron sportsway during accounts As with 247, there were only a few substantive tweaks in this case three So this first week on page 188 What responds to a request to make it clear that the operators need to maintain records on a patron's acknowledgement that only they may use their sportsway during account Consent to the monitoring and recording of the use of the sportsway during account and affirmation that the pii the patron provided is accurate And this language ensures that the operators retain that information The next tweak will be on the top of page 189 Geo comply recommended that we shorten the time period to re-verify a patron's account potentially Potentially compromised patron account The sportsway during division agreed. So we had accepted this recommendation Our next and final substantive edit is a ways down on page 196 One commenter suggested that patrons whose accounts are suspended should have rights to be told about the reason for the suspension Um, well, we understand the desire for transparency in this area The difficulties that many account suspensions will involve integrity or other enforcement issues and Giving away information or refusing to give away information May reveal the existence of an investigation or otherwise compromised an investigation Um after discussion with gli and the sportsway during division We settled on requiring operators to inform suspended patrons how to submit a complaint either with the With both with the operator and with the commission as discussed yesterday That smooths the path for patrons to raise legitimate concerns about their account suspensions without running a risk of underlining enforcement If there are no Sorry, Paul. I was just going to ask the commissioners are any questions on that So the comments start The comments start on page 198 Thank you, Paul So these first two comments correspond to Uh, the edits that we've just shown you the first is the comment from geocomply The second is the comment from the member of the public concerning account suspensions The first comment we do not recommend adopting appears towards the bottom of page 199 Um, bedmgm is asking to be allowed to use hashing instead of encryption for certain purposes gli assured us that the encryption requirement is a standard requirement in post and other jurisdictions that they should be able The bedmgm should be able to comply with Um The next two comments from bedmgm ask that they be instructed to destroy Uh patron and pii That isn't necessary for legal and enforcement purposes While we appreciate These the spirit of these comments as we appreciated the spirit of a related comment for bedmgm on 247 yesterday We were slightly puzzled by these because we think that all of the information that we require and operators to collect is potentially useful for legal and enforcement purposes um We're concerned that adopting the suggestion would introduce confusion about that fact and invite operators to Make their own judgments about what they can destroy and potentially destroy pii that we will that we need them to retain So we do not recommend adopting these suggestions Uh, the next comment from bedmgm is about the sharing of patron information Um, we don't fully understand at this point how much of a burden This proposal would impose on other operators or even how useful this would be to patrons So we don't recommend adopting this comment. Um, if there's interest from the commission in Investigating what the impact of this comment would be I would suggest that we Start by incorporating it into a discussion with the data privacy and security division as commissioner brian suggested earlier Questions on that one. Okay So the next series of comments from geocomply Are asking to add monitoring and consumer protection measures that are already covered elsewhere in the regulations So i'll give you two examples. Um, this first comment At the bottom of page 200 suggests that we instruct operators to develop capacities to prevent proxy bedding But this is already covered in 205 cm r 238 32 4 The next two comments, uh, which suggests that we define multifactor authentication and require it in certain circumstances as really already subsumed within Our adoption of gli 33, so we don't recommend adopting these comments from geocomply Paul could you just cite the um, the proxy Where we cover that issue on the other right too? Yes, it's in, uh, 238 0.32 subsection 4 Can we get back to geocomply to um a chance now because it just came these came into us, right? Just wondered if they had missed it and wondered what they thought of i'm thinking about The proxy bedding issue It's not a new comment that i'm chair Can you use these comments? Came in relatively late but not at the last minute I would have to check on the exact date Well, we can circle back to geocomply and just have them look at the language that we do have in case they missed it Given the length of 238, that's Sir please many of us Another jurisdiction so we want to make sure So if I may I'd like to move on to the three final comments from bedmgm, which pick up on page 204 But I would recommend that you look at the third comment, which is on page 207 So these comments all address these as treatment of accounts bedmgm is asking the commission to add A login to a sportsway during account to the list of possible activities That prevent an account from us cheating So I want to start with a little bit of background on how we developed our approach to this treatment And in august 31st letter to the commission treasurer goldberg asked the commission to ensure that accounts this sheet after a period of an activity Because there were concerns that sportsway during operators have Not let accounts is cheat in other states And the treasurer specifically encouraged us to review iowa's regulations in this area consistent with iowa's regulations uh the forms of activity that Prevent an account from us cheating our withdrawal of funds from the account a deposit of funds from the account or a wager And bedmgm is asking us to add a login to this list so they present a few arguments Which some of which claim that there are conflicts with other state law and with federal law and because because The arguments involve potential conflicts with other law I would like to take them one by one to be very clear about our reasoning and why we see no conflict Bedmgm's first argument is that this conflicts with the definition of activity in the treasurer's general regulations on his treatment 960 cmr 402 We We don't see that the treasurer's regulations List a series of activities that demonstrate an interest That owners interest in maintaining control of an account They don't define logging in As sufficient every activity that they list reflect a heavier lift than simply logging into an existing account um, also again our regulations are the list of activities in our regulation is consistent with the list of activities in iowa which The treasurer which is the regulation the treasurer specifically called to our attention Um, so i'm not concerned. There's a conflict with the treasurer's regulations The second argument the bedmgm presents is that uh, this conflicts with an sec guidance on his treatment I've reviewed what I believe to be this guidance and there are several reasons. I don't see a conflict with our regulations Uh, first of all, it's the sec It's concerned with brokerage accounts and sports wagering accounts are not brokerage accounts Um, second this guidance doesn't establish any law. It appears to be an informal advisory document For the benefit of investors And it even explains that state law not federal law governs its treatments. So it's not It's not making law. Uh, that would govern the that would govern Accounts even if it governed accounts that are Even if it governs sports wagering accounts, which it does not so I don't see a meaningful conflict with the sec guidance either Um, bedmgm's third argument is the requiring owners who are not in a financial or emotional position to engage with their accounts to Engage an activity in their their accounts presents a responsible gaming issue um, but they overlook the fact that You know, they they insist that the only way to keep an account alive is to add funds or place a wager Which would present a serious responsible gaming issue And ignore the fact that withdrawal of funds is a permissible form of activity to keep an account alive Also, if someone isn't equipped to log into their account and initiate a one dollar withdrawal for three years We would probably prefer that person not to log into their account at all and we would prefer that account to as cheap as soon as possible Finally, um, although bedmgm clearly feels strongly about this regulation We haven't heard from any other operator or member of the public on it So for all of those reasons, we do not recommend adopting bedmgm's comment on this treatment Questions for paul I'll be all set with With paul in terms of going through all of these comments Yes, thank you. Commissioner hill. I appreciate an affirmation. All right. Thank you so much So i'm not hearing anything paul um commissioners We've gotten through That would be the final read. I think for today, which is was our Our homework although we marked up for another discussion So if there's no further questions, we could move on that one Madam chair, I would be more than happy to do that Um, I moved that the commission approved the amended small business and back statement and the draft of 205 c mr 248 has included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today And further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary To file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth to finalize regulation promulgation process Let me rephrase that uh commonwealth to to finalize the regulation promulgation process second Any questions? Okay, commissioner bryan Hi commissioner hill hi commissioner skinner hi Commissioner maynard I vote yes five zero So we've taken care of All the regs that were before is correct katelyn and cary That's right. Thank you Okay, now we mark up time for the um discussion around The sports wagering vendor and sports wagering advertising banks We also have reserved time for tomorrow at one. It is 123. I just checked our calendar and this meeting was intended to conclude about eight minutes ago. I'm not sure what the time frame how It was decided but that's What I have on my calendar um I think um, even if we want to go to the uh, I wouldn't need to take a little bit of a break Um, so that would only make a date later and I suspect my fellow commissioners would want a bit of a break So commissioners are we ready to Adjourn today. I see karen wells is leaning in I just uh for the commissioners Education I did check this mark. I know you have a sort of a hold on your calendar for something with respect to game sense So he indicated that that certainly was not mandatory I would expect that this matter could take precedence. So I Did check the commissioner calendars. That's the only thing that I could see that would Forgive it you from going forward today, but of course defer to the commissioners of what they want to do I'm I'm sorry Because I because I think I was in traveling I my records may not be great. What am I missing on game sense today? It's uh, and I didn't have it on the agenda Yeah, there's a sort of a game sense strategy meeting but more Oh Yeah, so oh, yes, so yes, if we wanted to did that get canceled or he can he can cover that so He could cover it. Is that what was the issue? I don't know. That's the only thing I'm seeing on commissioners Others um that sort of bumps up against this timeframe. Oh, well, we're we're still getting used to our scheduling.  What would you like to do? We can Take a break and continue on and then clear thursday Um, I uh commissioner hill. What would you like to do? They're looking for an opinion I would love a break and I would love to come back and see if we can finish these off today But I have a hard stop, but I do have a hard stop at 415 Okay Yeah, um, I I need lunch. I'm glad I'm not the first one to say it. Thank you brad. Yeah, I Oh if anybody ever needs that comment just say brad Um, I'll just pull on my ear and you can you can say that you need to eat um Yeah, I do so I have a lot of thoughts on These two in particular and my question karen is is mark saying he's going to be otherwise occupied Because I'd love him to be part of this. Um That's a good question And or if not, we can have the conversation and maybe there's a short meeting tomorrow afternoon to sort of Circle back on this stuff and vote. Um, that would be my thought because I've had some conversations with him and brienne and just looking at some stuff myself So I just want to make sure it can be part of the process. I can run it fast Yeah, because otherwise I wouldn't I probably would have everything roll over to tomorrow rather than Yeah, I I wouldn't probably do both I might just note that we thought we thought this was ending at 115 So our outside council have some commitment starting at three. Um So we We'd like them to be here if possible So maybe we just take a break go to three and then No, no, they they um, they are not available until three. Is that what you just said? No, no, sorry. They they are available until Yeah, so we just would take a half an hour and then we'd have an hour So I'm sure that our legal team could also Someone also check to see if director lilios is available for the vendor ranks just Yes, that's a good question. She's not on the meeting currently I don't believe she's available today, but Hi, Heather. How are you? I'm well, how are you? Hey, I just wanted to let everybody know, um, Kara O'Brien and I are both going to be available for the discussion on the vendor ranks We've touched base with Loretta and We will both be here Okay All right, Karen Is available if you want to take a break and then come back Yeah, all right. Um, we'll be convening this meeting. Let's do two o'clock and we'll have a good one hour discussion on this matter Um, we know the outside council Um, it's not available after that hour. So thank you everyone Hey mills Thank you You're all set Thank you so much. Um I think we're turning now to page 222 of our Chockette I'll turn to Todd and Katelyn. I'm not sure if you're leaving this discussion, but just to remind everyone we had a very productive round table on Monday Most of the stakeholders who have submitted comments to us Uh, we were very fortunate to have so many participants from the operators To the third party affiliates. We also had a representative from Nessan and we had a member of the responsible gaming experts who we had heard from earlier In our responsible gaming round table So before we get started, I do have to I have to do a roll call. So commissioner bryan. Good afternoon Good afternoon. I am here right Commissioner hill. Good afternoon Good afternoon. I'm here Commissioner skinner. Good afternoon afternoon And commissioner maynard. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, madam chair Right. So as I said, you know, we this is um This discussion is a result of That round table and we decided to bring it out from next Tuesday to today or tomorrow because the invested parties did say that timeless of the essence for them, you know, should we either reconsider our regulation or Whether it stays the same they just would need Some finality for their business purposes. So it was no problem for us to accommodate that this week so I see pollens back How I don't commissioners can tee it up or legal will turn to you. The one thing I wanted to know is that they I in the packet the power point that Was presented by third parties is not included I believe though that has been put out into the public sphere somewhere I want to make sure that that public document is at least out there Certainly folks got to see it in real time when they presented it I believe that's correct, but we can double check There's no chair. I'm happy to uh to work with the legal team to get that power point up on the website in the next 10 minutes Okay, excellent, but that's just another resource that we have All right Thank you So I am happy to set this up from a regulatory Perspective just the way the regulations interact with each other So as the chair mentioned, there was the round table about the sports wagering advertising regulation and in particular Uh, that is 205 cmr 256.013 that specific paragraph is Where the conversation was focused and that's on page 233 of your packet depending on what the commission And I should also note that the the packet does include all of the comments that we've received on that provision to date Not the power point, but we can we can add that Depending on what the commission decides to do with regard to that section whether it decides to allow Cost per cpa cost per acquisition agreements revenue sharing agreements or some combination of the two That would then have an effect on the vendor regulation Which we can discuss separately, but that's why this is first So the commission can decide what it would like to do with the advertising reg and those that will impact the discussion on the vendor reg Yeah, this um, there is intersectionality there and that's why the agenda marked it up. So well We have both regs in our packet as well And one other thing I should note chair is that the advertising reg is still in the promulgation process It comes back for a final vote on the 23rd So to the extent the that the commission wants to issue any waivers to to the specific provision a waiver can be issued today, but And that can then be incorporated when it comes back for a final vote on march 23rd right um In the vendor reg It was gonna ask that when's the vendor reg the vendor reg is in a different situation So the vendor reg was one of the first regs. I think the second reg you saw so that is fully in effect So what we're doing today is bringing that back for an amendment So this would be I believe the first amendment to the vendor reg and we would then start the promulgation process If done by emergency, it would be the same way that we've been doing it. We put it into effect right away Get comments and move it through Okay So Who wants to just um remind maybe it's katelyn. Maybe it's another member of the legal team The The status quo, where are we right now and and then And we actually gave some advice on what the the reg does right now And then we had a lot of input from stakeholders and that's why we help around table. Go ahead katelyn Absolutely happy to do that. So we had received a number of questions about what exactly uh, 256.013 did and so uh upon reviewing the reg we issued a clarification that What that provision does is it prohibits third-party marketing entities from entering into contracts with the operators That that involve revenue sharing agreements that are based on sort of the number of patrons that actually sign up for an account Or the amount of money that a patron wagers on an account and it would also prohibit It also does currently prohibit cost per acquisition Relationships based on those same factors a cost per acquisition of Based on the number of patrons that sign up for an account or the volume or the number of wagers made by a patron Okay, and then The intersectionality issue. Can you explain why? Absolutely. Yeah, the other red, please. Absolutely. So The vendor reg is coming back. Um, it was going to come back anyway. Um, it was going to come back because After learning more and going through this process The IEB and and licensing division Wanted to provide some more clarity with regard to the definition of third-party marketing entity and then also To suggest a change to the licensing versus registration requirements currently all third-party marketing entities are required to be licensed There is a waiver in effect for now that in fact The commission decided that they did not need to be licensed in for this period of time. They're being registered Um, but licensing and the IEB would like to to formalize that the twist comes in Where if the commission decides today that it wants to allow Cost per acquisition relationships The IEB and and I'll let the IEB in licensing talk about this more specifically But they would recommend continuing to require or formalizing the requirement of registration for those entities If however, the commission decides to allow revenue sharing agreements those are larger potentially more serious agreements And the IEB and licensing would recommend that there is actual licensure of those entities that enter into the revenue sharing agreements And so when you look at that reg after the after this decision is made And we look at the reg we can show you that what language would be used in each instance or at least the language that we are recommending in each instance The options Okay, so that's that's a stage a little reminder. It was just Monday, but We've done a lot in between so commissioners I'm going to just sort of do the take the temperature if you don't mind so that we can find out um, and maybe help Our team know where we're coming from Christian health. Can I turn to you? Thank you can And I've been giving this a lot of thought and I actually have a lot of questions And I think before I make my comments I think I see mark on the meeting I think I need to hear a little bit more about how the third party And revenue share affects our rg stuff Because I'm really I think what I heard monday is it doesn't as much as I thought it might But I want to get clarification about that Mark you're on mute I know I tried to hit my mute button before you had to say you're on mute No problem Um, commissioner hill, could you be more specific how it affects when you say how it affects rg? I think I If we if we allow Cost per acquisition revenue sharing tell me what how that might affect Our responsible gaming because I think the issue is that we may be going after a certain population. We're not trying to go out but We may end up going after a portion of the population that you're concerned about it. We're all concerned yeah, so I'll answer the the best I can and kind of on the fly here commissioner Um, and I think it relates a little bit back to some of the other concerns that we had and that we're trying to address and other parts of that regulation but What is the ability to protect vulnerable populations? How do you how do we Working with a regulating licensing marketing affiliates. What effect does that have on our our ability to control what marketing is out there? How saturated does the market become? With advertising when we open up the door wide open to to marketing affiliates um There are specific protections that are captured within 256 elsewhere That are really important to us And assuring that we're that this is happening across the board Is is important and does allowing marketing affiliates or opening the door wide open to marketing affiliates Affect our ability to enforce enforce that um, I think that there is you know to say what difference does cpa versus revenue share make um, I wish I was more versed in sort of what are the pros and cons of both of those but um bottom line is I think that um I think that whatever direction the commission goes that Our ability to enforce it and to make sure that all parts of that regulation are enforced is really important So that's how I felt uh I felt as though we are protecting our most vulnerable thatters with the uh Regulations that we have in place And the more thought I gave to this There are other industries That are also vulnerable. I would think about alcohol and I would think about marijuana And after our discussion on monday, I actually went and googled What is the best? Small brewery in massachusetts and you should have seen what popped up I then went and looked where is the best marijuana or uh shops in massachusetts You should have seen the information That came up when I googled it And I think we have better protections in place through our current regulations and those other industries And I don't know the answer to that. I'm putting it out there. I don't know what the regulations are for the cannabis control I don't know what the abcc has in regards to market affiliates and revenue share and third parties and all that um other Stuff that goes with it. But the more I thought about it is we are a lot we are could be disallowing a whole industry That does business now in massachusetts that they wouldn't be allowed to do if this uh regulation was to move forward as is And I don't think I've gotten enough data To tell me that there's a problem that we're trying to address here by not allowing marketing affiliates And third party folks to come into massachusetts for this particular industry Which is um disappointing to me not because nobody could get it to me just because I don't have it I love the data that this commission Gets us when we're making decisions So my my thought process madam chair as of right now Is I would have no problem allowing marketing affiliates to come in I have no problem with revenue sharing In other ways of paying Until I can be convinced that there's a problem we're trying to address And I think I heard mark say that We really don't have the pros and cons to this yet. I think in the future we're going to for sure But I think as of right now I'm not sure why we have this in place And removing it would probably be something I could support today Knowing full well that we could bring it back for a discussion at another time if There's an issue that pops up that we need to address Thank you madam chair Okay, can I just um do a follow-up mark you did hear brian's Comments and she's a colleague shared colleague and somebody that you Your respect can maybe you can at least for the public's purpose if not for all of us to be Sort of remind us of some of the highlights of her Contributions I'll be the best I can um, I mean, I think brands take was you know marketing affiliates the allowing marketed affiliates isn't necessarily bad in fact there There are in some ways it's It's a positive thing in the market. And so I don't think that she would argue that Um eliminating that altogether is is a good thing. I think that brian also Would provide some caution Um about how far you open open the door what there should be rules around How marketing affiliates operate? um Which would be mirror be exactly the same of how we're holding our operators Accountable marketing affiliates need to be held accountable as well um so I mean madam chair that's It's hitting in that shell. I think it's it's not her point wasn't it wasn't at all bad Yeah, and if I didn't call correctly she did she did um have she had worked closely with the the third party affiliates that were represented and did uh suggest that they provide rg Information that you might not get elsewhere. I think we heard quite a bit about the challenge of legitimate third party affiliates versus dealing with offshore marketing and so that challenge of Black market versus a regulated market. I think she addressed that she was um, I think all of us agree She was a very valuable contributor to that conversation that day We're lucky that she could make it on that notice on your ladder point though holding the um The third party responsible. I I mentioned the other day and I think this is a strength in our reg is that we start with The matter at the end of the day When it's third party or any other vendor the sports wagering operator is always going to be responsible for content um, you know advertising marketing branding Content and conduct of all of that It falls on on the sports wagering operator 256 oh one subsection one. So just a reminder whether we want to reiterate that for the The third the third party that would be good, but the end of the day I think we all recognize that these sports wagering operator is in charge of their their strategies and content um So I'll just turn so um Mr. Hill, I didn't mean to put you on the spot But I just thought it's a good way to get the conversation rolling a little bit and remind us of our challenges. I see commissioner brian. You're leaning in yeah, so To the commissioner Hill's question in terms of why it's even there. I can say that The reason that that language is in there in the third party marketers Um, I can take responsibility for some of that in terms of putting it in front of the five of us early on One of the last trainings that I was in prior to the legislation being passed um a legislator a regulator in michigan commented on This was probably one of the areas to try to be the most aggressive on to stop saturation of the market A for the annoyance factor to the people that don't want to have anything to do with the industry And then also to protect the vulnerable As you were talking about And so we put in a number of things like the chair said the operators ultimately responsible for this person's conduct Regardless of what you know the the contractual relationship is So I've been trying to educate myself on this more and more I actually called brian after that meeting because I had a lot of follow-up questions on What is the difference between cost per acquisition revenue share that sort of thing? What are other states doing in this regard? so One of the things that I took out of that meeting and that I said to brian was the intent of what we wanted to do is Stop saturation and protect the vulnerable While allowing them to market And it seems that the language we put in May have the opposite effect. So it may be that what we're doing is You know Incentivizing the operators to then do mass inundation of the market, which is going to increase saturation Which is what we don't want What I did not take out of that meeting however is we should just eliminate the restrictions that we put out there on cpa And rev share without other controls because I don't think that's going to solve the problem I actually think it's going to create more issues So the question I had is what are other jurisdictions doing so we can Address the fact that how we have it written is probably going to be the counter effect of what we wanted But I don't think eliminating it is the solution Me new york states literally simultaneously when we were having that round table voted to ban rev share Because the inherent conflict of interest and the inherent motivation to get people to bet more on a rev share agreement Is counter to the rg that we want to have and the protection of the vulnerable people so The people that participated in that round table Were some of the most Um active in terms of rg in that field in that area and brienne said that Um What I do want to point out However, is they're not the only actors and my takeaway from the conversations with her as well is Some of the most predatory behavior and the most negatively impactful behavior come from Smaller players who come in and out of a market quickly to maximize maybe a cost per acquisition Or revs you and then they go Maybe they get banned they reincorporate they come back in so To the extent that we're considering Changing the rig to allow cpa and or rev share agreements. There's a lot of options that we have to put countermeasures in place to try to eliminate that Lower hanging fruit for lack of a better term who I think probably propagate the worst damage on this And there are a lot of different ways to do it My understanding is kansas actually caps the number of third party affiliate contracts each operator can have Which by nature would maybe you know cap the number of these people that are going to be in the state License them I think is absolutely critical a it makes sure that you're getting you know a suitable corporation Looking at and this is a question that I have for licensing and and karen heather, which is the common brienne also made to me is The costly or the license the more of a commitment the company is going to have to make And the more of a commitment they make to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts As opposed to a de minimis fee a Registration process maybe an easier process where they can churn and burn get profit and take off and do some damage in the leaf so Licensing them Making sure the licensing fee and I'm not sure what that structure is I know that's somewhere else in the rag making that have some teeth to it So people aren't going to want to make a commitment when they put in for the license Potentially capping the number that each operator could have to try to keep the number Such that we're you know, but only ideally getting the best operators in this area There's a the the concept of Potentially doing reporting requirements and this is another conversation that we can have because this question of whether they help are hurt As well to me is And I think the timing is fortuitous. We're coming up with our research agenda I would love to have something that has some sort of reporting come in from the third party market affiliate data that then Feeds some sort of research about the impact. So that's something that I think we can talk about And then I also want to look at new jersey and colorado who have said that to their point they don't have The pii the third party market of themselves don't However, the operators do And to put something in place in another reg either freestanding or in the rg reg That requires them to take that data that they're getting look for trends And try to do intervention and rg protocols Based on that information So this to me is not so simple as do we say that we're just going to strike that and allow cpa and revshare um I absolutely think there is a place for those third party marketers in this environment But I think this is a much more complicated conversation than just Okay, do we strike it? I mean you could also the argument that revshare is necessary for sure There's maybe some small or legitimate companies like the one who participated in the call But once you're up and running do you need to continue to have revshare where you're in that inherent Pushing people to do betting to make your money So is there a time limit or a sunset on revshare when somebody enters the market? You can do it for the first x time The expectation at that point is you can go off and running if you cost per acquisition That wouldn't be a need for revshare So there's a lot to unpack and what I've just said but Um at its heart. I don't think we should be eliminating The ban on it unless we're putting countermeasures in place To make sure that we are getting the most responsible and beneficial third party marketers into this Thanks, I'm going to have commissioner Skinner and I'll turn to commissioner Maynard. Commissioner Skinner I don't like know how to follow that I think I'm a Gerald Ryan You know you raised some excellent points I have a couple of questions to start So I think I'm pretty clear on the CPA side of the house But I could use a bit more education on the revenue sharing component I am not clear on the distinction between the two agreements So I don't know if anyone participating in this meeting could shed light on that If not, I'm happy to take advantage of the resources we have In Brienne as Commissioner O'Brien mentioned to kind of come up to speed on that I think we should be able to answer that That's more legal than RG Does anybody want to any of our legal team want to explain the difference to the between the CPA and the revenue share? You must have all been thinking about it I can give it a try and let's pull one Thank you Caitlin Yes So the CPA is more of a one-off situation, right? The third party if someone clicks on the third party marketing entities ad Clicks through to the operator's website and makes an account. Let's say they get Five dollars every time that happens, right? So it's sort of a one by one process My understanding is that the revenue sharing is based on They're actually sharing a percentage of the operator's revenue So someone clicks through the website becomes becomes a patron and that's a hundred dollars They get ten dollars of it and then they bet another hundred dollars. They get another ten dollars So that's that's the issue is that they're actually taking a percentage of the of the earnings based on each bet I'm kind of think about it from like the acquisition they're getting a customer versus Making money on on finding a customer versus making money on activity By the patron, but that's kind of a real simplistic view. I I've taken on it. Commissioner Skinner Is that kind of fair to the legal team? Yeah I mean, it sounds pretty simple, but but I know it's not. I mean, you know, we we did our best to You know educate ourselves as a body and holding the round table But I don't I don't know, you know that we are As informed as we probably should be as we're taking Position on whether to keep the language in this regulation or not another question that I have is You know, we heard from the representative group of marketing affiliates, but Are there other marketing affiliates and I asked that that we didn't hear from That may be perhaps The bad actors that we're concerned about in terms of oversaturation, you know You have we heard from our participants on monday that they utilize a pull system of advertising As opposed to the push system of advertising and at least in my mind I Can readily favor one or over the other the pull versus the push, but are there marketing affiliates who who That that that we're that we're you know talking about here That use the push method of advertising And so you know if that if the answer to that is yes, you know, I 100% agree with commissioner o'brien that We shouldn't just be eliminating The language prohibiting those agreements without proper controls Because as much as I you know can appreciate The the good right the the positive that the marketing affiliates We heard from monday Bring to the ecosystem In this in this in this Industry, I also can appreciate that there are there's a different side of that that you know goes against exactly what You know the commission and you know even those Participants on monday were arguing that we should not Entertain I I agree with commissioner hill in in that I don't know that I don't really know what the problem is that we're trying to solve I mean, I I I understand why the language Is in there um commissioner o'brien reminded us um just a minute ago Uh, I'm not sure that the solution However is to outright prohibit those agreements um What was very persuasive uh to me is is brian's um brian excuse me is her Her thoughts around the issue and you know she Kind of sided with the operators here and the marketing affiliates here And that was important her position was important to the discussion very important to the discussion. And so I'm I'm Don't know that I have a That i'm ready to take a vote on this just yet. Um, so but i'm really um Turning to my fellow commissioners and and the team to kind of help me develop a little bit more A better understanding of where what direction we should be going in I certainly would Be in favor of entertaining a waiver of some sort because I I understand these regulations are currently in place now But I do think there is a significant amount of discussion remaining Uh to determine whether or not um, you know, if we're going to have these these these uh vendors licensed What the level is going to be? The other question I have I think it's the last question I have is um, we heard about connecticut in illinois I if I remember correctly connecticut prohibits CPAs and revenue sharing And illinois prohibits revenue sharing and so does anyone do do we have an understanding as to why that is Are they consistent with our thinking in in drafting this reg or is there another reason that they are asserting if we know I don't think we did that right now Okay I don't think we did that research. We can certainly do it. Um, but I do know that we modeled our language after those two states Okay, it would be helpful to kind of understand their their their thought process A little bit Um, but that's where I am and I and I don't know that I made clear where I am, but I'm still struggling a little bit my commission leader Thank you, madam chair first, thank you for facilitating the round table on monday was extremely helpful and understanding the issue And to come to the skinner's point I got a quick education from the folks at the round table and the difference between illinois and connecticut when I got the two Uh confused and how they were going about business. So learned that one the hard way um you know, I Like others I listened to to brian from the rg perspective um And was heartened to know that we are one of the most We are the strongest when it comes to rg protections in the country and um, that really sets me at ease. Um I think that mark and his team are the best in the country and I think that you know, we have the ability to think and think differently um There was some information that was provided before that round table about the push versus pull Advertisement and that was very very instructive to me Because worrying about the prolifer proliferation of advertisements um It's different when someone goes to google and searches something Versus when it's just on the television or it's on, you know, just on the radio I've seen them in print um And so someone who googles You know best sports wagering app and the commonwealth is going to get A result. That's what I learned on monday And the question is who's on the other side of that result? Is it an offshore book? Is it some kind of group that isn't a licensee? Or is it someone that we took the time to vet? And to me that's just positive here. Um, the advertisement is going to happen Um, google is going to take them up And so to me the best thing we can do is fill that with folks who have been vetted Folks who are working with our operators and as you pointed out madam chair um, so rightly we are um Holding all operators accountable for what they do in their advertisements um To that to that point you know, I think that With the revenue sharing piece. I agree with commissioner bryan 110 percent and I believe that kaitlyn said that the iub feels very similar Which is there should be a heightened level of of looking at at these um operators and and and licensure is Is is probably that level For those who engage in revenue sharing and I would be very comfortable today Making any decisions we make contingent on that But I am comfortable with this moving forward because I do believe someone's going to fill the space I think it should be folks that we are regulating And and monitoring and and not folks who we're not regulating or monitoring All all of these comments are so helpful and I'll turn to our team because I would reiterate that um No, the idea portion poem that That's critical to our very very first Meetings before sports for your dream was legalized commissioner hill where you said I I'm brand new and I'm already seeing ads and you know feeling the intensity of sports betting advertisement on our national nfl games And it's that push out push out push out And so we were worried to commissioner brian's point on you know saturation frequency intensity And that's what led us to this this decision to To adopt this reg as is because on its face We don't want People making money on You know in on his face right making money on on wagering activity um No, do we want them making money? on every time they open account that seem to be All consistent in terms of our our values and and our observations about frequency and in intensity of advertising When I learned about the comments that were coming in How to get my head wrapped around just because it still didn't make sense why um Why anybody would want those arrangements, but it appears that These third party affiliates, uh, this is palm marketing works and it's the industry that I'm not familiar with But we got a lot of information the other day on how Uh this industry does work and how By allowing them to have Proper contracts in place and even they would say the proper licensure in place They can add a responsible gaming component that brian confirmed for us And and compete with the The offshore marketers so that that was a nuance I just didn't understand and I and I and I believe uh given The numbers of uh stakeholders that we heard from and how many were willing on instant to come and Talk to us and uh on both sides the operators and the vendor side so I I look at Our rag is the intention was Was right and the intention continues to be right But have we done something unintentionally? That could actually have worse consequences, so I'm Not you know So I understand it We don't allow these types of arrangements The third party affiliates just won't necessarily participate and so marketing will go more into that push space, which is that much more frequent in intensity And the whole space will Go to the offshore market. So the legitimate market third party marketers won't really have Space to operate and I think we saw Caesar's letter that was You know the first sign that it's going to impact your business I did turn to new jersey and that directive is in it's 2014. So It seems old, but when I had conversations with individuals who had written in They directed me to this directory The director's advisory bulletin because it really does create different licensure steps for different Arrangements for revenue sharing or being paid compensation arrangements. So So that that's been working in new jersey and And then we looked at around the country and it made sense that we would borrow from Illinois We didn't just borrow from Illinois. We went even further and Decided to Prevent both revenue and CPA and I think again the right intentions are just an inadvertent consequence I think commissioner brian you've outlined Outlined I think probably all the steps that all of us were taking into consideration How can we you know, what can we do to? Protect the values that we thought about when we first adopted this And now be responsive to what looks like Some unforeseen consequences and I I would be ready to say That We make arrangements. I'm very interested now to turn to the options arrangements so that The registrant level could be used for those that are engaging in CPA or something like that That's not involved in the majoring of the wage activity and then that higher licensure um and follow up with the research that commissioner brian is suggesting because We should be watching this. This is you know, commissioner brian brought it to our attention at the beginning something for us to look at I think we probably didn't have commissioner skinner pointed out. We didn't have we don't have all the information now It turns out we didn't have all the information then either so We got a lot more now collectively and I'm thinking that could make adjustments I'm not sure I'd want to do it I think we need to give some degree of certainty and not make it temporary But with that said the information we can always change our rags, but the only thing I'm thinking I think I heard somebody say maybe Temporary or something like that I think that these might be long-term contracts So that's the only thing in the back of my mind is what does that mean again another inadvertent consequence? but I am I felt like The good news was that in many ways everybody at that round table Embrace the same values that we started with And that that was my big takeaway. They understood why we would have started with that But they needed to explain to us why it just doesn't work in your life so with that perhaps we can hear the options that Legal has come up with and I see cara is president heather president Cara How are you doing? She I'm sorry to interrupt you. Can I can I have a follow-up? Sure. Yeah, and I was just going to ask Cara how she's doing sure So Does it or should it make a difference to to the underlying values here? relative to profiting From from gambling If The profit is a result of the pull advertising versus the push advertising Right. I mean, I'm just this is a genuine question. I'm trying to understand you know, if That profit is generated by a patron who is seeking out you know Sports sports wagering as a result of a query that they have entered Into the search engine Why why, you know, I just I see a distinction if there's if a patron is go ahead madam chair No, I don't want to interrupt you But I think I can tell you what I'm thinking then you can see if I'm even close Who I thought about this. I think the questions I understand it this is that Right now we're getting push advertising and it's going to everyone It's not that remember during our assessment of all the applications how they explained how they tailored all their marketing and they really worked on Marketing to those who are interested Now, let's be clear. There are those In the market and who are who are interested in betting and they are going to do safe and informed betting Then we have those that we have to monitor them Very carefully and make sure that they're not getting Any kind of advertising and that's where we do have those guardrails in place that they can't Advertise to somebody on the BSE or it was underage But otherwise tailoring their marketing to the audience to that full is From my perspective and I thought that's what beyond Brianna. I'm sorry was saying is that It's targeted and that word not being a derogatory term To those who are interested in sports betting rather than the push which right now goes out to all us Including including Underage inadvertently right they turn on the TV and there's They they push add So that is that what you were kind of getting at push your skin or is this something else? Yeah, no, I'm just trying to you know, I'm just trying to just take us back to you know You've talked about the the values that we attached to This initial that this you know draft language or it's not draft the language that is appearing Now in the regulation if this is An industry standard Right, not just for sports wagering as commissioner hill mentioned but across All industries and this is the way marketing works No Why should We as a body take issue with that simply because We're in the not simply but Just by the simple fact that we are regulating gaming here Right. I mean again if if we can distinguish if we can make um a distinction between the kind of advertising um, I think we should and I think there's an opportunity to do that here in Comparing the push Advertising to the pull advertising because again with the with the primary distinction being there are individuals who are seeking out this information versus people who Are inundated with advertisement that they don't they don't want it's an you know the frequency the the annoyance factor all of that So I see two different buckets here and that's why I think You know for me it would be helpful to understand One Do the marketing affiliates that Have these Revenue share agreements with the operators Do they utilize the pull? I think they do But do they utilize the pull advertising method or the push advertising method? That would be important for me to know and then you know back to my earlier question Are their marketing affiliates that would be at play here With our sports wagering operators Who do utilize the push? method of advertising I mean you might be getting into the realm of The bigger more established more responsible players versus you know, maybe the Not as ethical players who are into do the churn and burn and to come in make a profit And leave And to my take on why should we do this? Advertising can help you get what you want. It can also Push people and pull people to do things or buy things that maybe they shouldn't yeah, and so I think we're uniquely situated to Be at the forefront of this Again, I Originally thought just don't allow it, you know, and then the more I've become educated on it the more I realize outright banning it is going to have the Absolute the opposite effect of what we were hoping for by saying don't come But I am equally convinced that simply saying go ahead and do it without any limitations Is equally as poorly? Implemented because that's that's not going to help us either Um, I do think that we have to be mindful about how we do this and your question early on commissioner schinner about Right now it's under a waiver right now. There is sort of this Manufactured timeline because of March 10th. So if the if the waiver addresses that March 10th I would like to have a really detailed conversation about how do we change this in a way That is the most effective for continuing to do what we wanted Which is stop the saturation and protect the vulnerable in a way that allows the effective marketing to happen So to your point, um, I've learned a tremendous amount over the last week the last couple of days in particular I would encourage you to reach out to brian. I know she's crazy busy But she's also incredibly generous with her time with your questions that I think some of us Can't answer because we're not as knowledgeable about it um So I know that she was very very Praising of the people that were there on that round table with us But I know there's also concerns about others in the industry and the practices and some and There are things to be taken from other jurisdictions and how they're doing this. So Um, I would love to have a detailed conversation again about the idea like hanzas as of saying you can do this But we're going to cap you so we're not inundated um Licensing increasing the cost of the license to make sure you're committed all of that. I would love to have a really detailed conversation up Yeah, and maybe the short term solution is the waiver to get past the 10th Can I ask one point of clarification on that? Do we have Can we actually impose a waiver? So what's the waiver reg in place then or did we do something like a suspension? in this I think we suspended it So I just want to I say that technical term because I I wonder if it matters not because I necessarily care um So just keep that in mind we suspend it because I don't think our waiver reg was quite in place yet Um, well, let's turn. Let's take a pause commissioners with our our views and see what the um Our team