You are here: / / “INTERACTIVE FANTASY SPORT” (IFS) IS NOT “GAMBLING;”...

“INTERACTIVE FANTASY SPORT” (IFS) IS NOT “GAMBLING;” THE STATUTES AUTHORIZING AND REGULATING IFS ARE NOT, THEREFORE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a comprehensive three-judge dissent, determined the 2016 statutes authorizing and regulating “interactive fantasy sport” (IFS) do not violate the New York Constitution’s prohibition of “gambling:”

… IFS contests are not prohibited gambling activities because contestants use significant skill to select their rosters, creating fantasy teams, and therefore have influence over the outcome of the fantasy contests between IFS participants. … [T]he historic prohibition on “gambling” in article I, § 9 does not encompass skill-based competitions in which participants who exercise substantial influence over the outcome of the contest are awarded predetermined fixed prizes by a neutral operator. * * *

… [T]he prohibition on “gambling” in article I, § 9 [of the NYS Constitution] encompasses either the staking of value on a game in which the element of chance predominates over the element of skill or the risking of value through bets or wagers on contests of skill where the pool of wagered value is awarded upon some future event outside the wagerer’s influence or control. However, games in which skill predominates over chance and skill-based competitions for predetermined prizes in which the participants have influence over the outcome do not constitute “gambling.” … .

From the dissent:

Since 1894, New York’s Constitution has prohibited “lotter[ies] . . . poolselling, bookmaking, or any other kind of gambling.” Everyone knows that sports betting is gambling. Betting on how many touchdowns a particular player will score is gambling. … Aggregating several bets involving different players into a point total that is pitted against point totals of other bettors does not transform gambling into something else. White v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 01954, Ct App 3-22-22

Practice Point: Statutes authorizing “interactive fantasy sport” IFS are not unconstitutional because such skill-based competitions do not constitute “gambling” in which the element of chance, as opposed to skill, predominates.

 

You might also like
THE FOURTEEN-MONTH PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL (CT APP)
CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL, TELLING DEFENDANT HE COULD RECEIVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR ATTEMPTED FELONY MURDER AND THE UNDERLYING FELONY (ROBBERY) DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT FURTHER GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND IS THEREFORE WAIVED BY A GUILTY PLEA.
THE FORMER SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PTSD STEMMED FROM A SERIES OF INTERACTIONS WITH A CO-EMPLOYEE OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN “ACCIDENT;” SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (ADR) (CT APP).
THE STATUTE PROHIBITING SEX OFFENDERS FROM BEING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SCHOOL GROUNDS AS APPLIED TO SEX OFFENDERS CONVICTED BEFORE THE STATUTE WENT INTO EFFECT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE; HERE PETITIONER WAS INCARCERATED PAST HIS PAROLE DATE BECAUSE HOUSING WHICH COMPLIED WITH THE SCHOOL GROUNDS LAW COULD NOT BE FOUND (CT APP). ​
REINSURANCE POLICIES TO BE INTERPRETED USING STANDARD CONTRACT PRINCIPLES, THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OR RULE OF CONSTRUCTION CONCERNING WHETHER A COVERAGE CAP INCLUDES ONLY LOSS, OR INCLUDES BOTH LOSS AND LITIGATION COSTS (CT APP).
PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE CRIMINALIZING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AS A FELONY DID NOT APPLY TO A MANAGER OF A MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, AS OPPOSED TO A MERCHANT, STOREKEEPER OR PRINCIPAL OPERATOR (CT APP).
Notations Added by Judge to Verdict Sheet to Help Jurors Differentiate the Counts Did Not Violate CPL 310.20

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

​ THE TARGETS OF A NO-KNOCK WARRANT ARE OWED A “SPECIAL DUTY”... THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT POWER BUGGIES BE OPERATED BY TRAINED,...