19

From a blog entry by Canadian lawyers familiar with sweepstakes and contest laws: In Canada, games of pure chance are prohibited as illegal lotteries under our Criminal Code... For contests of chance, making prize redemption conditional on answering a skill-testing question turns a game of pure chance into a (legal) game of mixed chance and skill....


15

No. There's nothing in neither the Gambling Act 2005 nor the Police Regulations 2003 specifically preventing police officers from buying lottery tickets (or gambling in general for that matter). The principal requirement from the Police Regulations is at Schedule 1, para 1 which is to do it (like everything else in life) sensibly: A member of a police force ...


7

I can see at least two defenses. Game of Skill Defense. Already mentioned in the comments. Entertainment Defense. One could claim the game itself is a form of entertainment and, therefore, all funds spent while playing the game are for entertainment purposes only vis-a-vis the game itself. And not any alleged gambling within the game. Consider the fact that ...


7

Gambling creates a risk where none exists. Gambling provides the opportunity for gains or losses. Insurance mitigates an existing risk of loss. The buyer of insurance has no opportunity for gain. The opportunity is to be made whole. EDIT: I suppose that I have provided the practical difference. The legal difference is that the statute distinguishes ...


7

Generally, it would be a juvenile offense for a minor to gamble and a crime for an adult to do so (assuming that the minor is old enough to be prosecuted for juvenile delinquency, you can't prosecute a two year old for playing poker). There are affirmative defenses to this crime (and the parallel juvenile offense) if: the actor engaged in gambling in a ...


6

No First, gambling is not illegal - only illegal gambling is illegal. Lotteries are legal in the United States when operated by or under licence from a state (44) or territory (3). That's legal gambling. It's illegal when operated by somebody else. Clearly, Omaze isn't one of these; but they aren't running a lottery. They are running a sweepstakes. Not only ...


6

No California has no laws on social gambling so it is treated identically to commercial gambling. Since betting on outcomes other than sports betting is illegal in California, such a bet would be illegal. While it’s unlikely to be prosecuted, as a contract it would be void its illegality and thus unenforceable.


5

It's really your client that should be asking these questions. Writing the app is perfectly legal. So you can enter a contract with that client to write the app and deliver it to them, ready to be put on the Google Play store or the App Store (entering a contract needs to be done carefully, obviously). I'd make 100 million percent sure that the contract ...


5

In NSW and all other Australian jurisdictions lotteries and other games of chance are regulated. See https://www.liquorandgaming.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/gaming/competitions/games-of-chance.aspx In general, lottery type games can only be run for the benefit of charities or by registered clubs. Free entry games can be run as trade promotions. Straight ...


5

Game of skill? Nonsense. There are skills that can help you out / prevent you from making bad decisions, but it's still gambling nonetheless. There is no gambling license you can obtain to operate an online poker site, or really any other online site that allows gambling, in the United States. It is completely against the law. In fact, the FBI shut down a ...


5

In at least one jurisdiction for at least one game type, the answer is "Yes". Modern slot machines and internet slot games are software, and yes, payout ratios are set as a parameter in the software, as an explicit bias in the software. There are statutory minimum payouts in some jurisdictions. The exact parameterized payout ratio for any specific game ...


5

It depends on the rules of the particular betting market and the laws under which it operates. Assuming that the bet itself is legal, it is not uncommon that participants in the contest are not allowed to bet, not because they distort the market, but because they can influence the outcome. Consider if instead of betting to win, Mr Trump bet on himself to ...


5

If Poker was to be included, and restricted to only In-Game "Cash", would this be an issue regarding Online Gambling laws in a significant number of countries? It is hard to give a comprehensive answer because laws vary significantly among countries. I will focus on U.S. law, but other countries very likely adopt a more stringent definition of gambling (...


5

This site says that the legal age for online gambling in AZ is 18, and for "land" gambling is 21, but does not mention penalties for violations. According to Arizona code section 13-3301 "Regulated gambling" requires that Beginning on June 1, 2003, none of the players is under twenty-one years of age. According to 13-3302 Regulated ...


4

The relevant legislation is found in sections 5361-5367 of the United States Code. The key prohibition is in section 5363. To fall within the scope of this prohibition, a person must: (1) be "in the business of betting or wagering" and (2) accept a payment in connection with the participation of another person in "unlawful Internet gambling". So you ...


4

The stock exchange deals in two broad types of things: shares in companies (or other organisations) and derivatives. The first is easy to deal with: buying and selling shares is not gambling - ownership of part of the company passes from seller to buyer. The value that they agree on represents their valuation of the company at the time of the trade; into ...


4

I don't speak Japanese, but using Japan's "unofficially" translated Penal Code document, they do not specifically define Pachinko as being allowed or disallowed. And as you noted with Pachinko, as long as cash is not exchanged directly, that is "enough to circumvent the gambling laws", a practice that "is both understood and fully ignored by all authories ...


4

They say they will award seven top prizes There are three people who are winners Acne lied about how many winners there would be and the fact that there were proposed to be more than there were may have induced people to enter. Well, that looks like sufficient evidence to prove the tort of misrepresentation right there. I'll run the class action on a ...


4

No. Money Laundering is the act of taking money that was made as a result of criminal activity and turning it into "clean" money. There are a number of ways this occurs, and there may be ways to do it with casino chips, but you haven't demonstrated that your money is "Dirty" to begin with. If you have a $100 dollar chip from a Vegas Casino, it means that ...


4

Explanatory note #176 on the Gambling Act 2005 specifies: There are some exceptions to the general prohibition on gambling by children and young people. Children and young persons may participate in all forms of private or non-commercial gaming and betting. Young persons may participate in lotteries and pool betting on association football. Children and ...


4

In the U.S. this will be dependant on State Gambling Laws, but typically it would only be illegal if the money was taken for a private Lottery (legally speaking, only the government is permitted to run lotteries, and the specific nature of a lottery is a game where a prize of monetary value is awarded to a participant by a mechanism of random chance). ...


3

The app you describe sounds illegal to me. Specifically, it sounds like a lottery. According to this site: [In the state of Ohio] A lottery includes three things: (1) chance, (2) prize, (3) and consideration. To successfully run a contest or sweepstakes and not an illegal lottery, you must eliminate one of these factors. A contest, for example, ...


3

Yes, this is gambling. The coupons have a value; gambling is the wagering of something of value. As to if it is illegal gambling, that would depend on the law in the jurisdiction where it takes place: for an internet transaction this could be the jurisdiction of the website owner or the user or both. As an example: in Australia, the Interactive Gambling Act ...


3

I would say no. The language requires a bet or wager to be based upon one of: a contest a sporting event a game Since insurance involves none of those things, I would say the answer is, "no." I assume when you write "insurance" you mean the typical types of insurance like property, casualty, life, fire, etc.


3

A contract is about risk allocation. One of the risks a contract can allocate is events outside the control of the contracting parties. For example, who is responsible if government regulations change, if it rains, if a structure collapses and if a third party does or does not do any particular thing. This does not make the contract an insurance contract ...


3

Absolutely possible and reasonable, if we take a concrete example. I own a piece of land, which is worth $10,000 if there is no permission to build on the land, and $100,000 if there is permission. I applied for permission. You want to buy the land from me. The real value is determined by the third party who would decide whether the permission to build on ...


3

“Fair Use” is a (US) copyright concept: it has no relevance to Trademarks. A Trademark may also be subject to copyright, for example, the word Google is a trademark but it is not copyright - the Google logo is both a trademark and subject to copyright. You infringe a trademark when you use it in such a way that people think that your goods and services are ...


3

No. This is not gambling. Your quoted and paraphrased definition is especially misleading, since the original definition given on uslegal.com explicitly excepts bona fide business transactions valid under the law of contracts, such as the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or commodities, contracts of indemnity or guaranty and life, health or ...


3

"Any perceived compliance or non-compliance of other developers’ apps does not have any bearing on the compliance of your own apps." Could this mean that Google Play's policies are applied differently for different developers or apps? No, it means that you can't break the rules even if others are breaking the rules or you think they are breaking ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible