{"id":3399,"date":"2018-03-23T17:23:01","date_gmt":"2018-03-23T18:23:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pokerscout.com\/?p=3399"},"modified":"2018-03-26T12:54:26","modified_gmt":"2018-03-26T12:54:26","slug":"pa-lawmakers-regulators-limiting-online-gambling-skins-never-intent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pokerscout.com\/pa-lawmakers-regulators-limiting-online-gambling-skins-never-intent\/","title":{"rendered":"PA Lawmakers To Regulators: Limiting Online Gambling \u2018Skins\u2019 Was Never Their Intent"},"content":{"rendered":"

Two prominent Pennsylvania lawmakers<\/strong> are urging the PA Gaming Control Board<\/strong> to resist calls to limit the number of online gambling websites (or \u201cskins\u201d) a licensed operator can launch.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s according to a letter sent on March 22<\/a>, first reported by Chris Krafcik<\/strong> of GamblingCompliance<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The state is looking to start the online gambling license process next month<\/a><\/strong> and launch iGaming later this year. The issue of skins, meanwhile, remains unresolved<\/a>.<\/p>\n

No limits on online gambling skins?<\/span><\/h2>\n

The two lawmakers \u2014 Reps. Rosita Youngblood<\/strong> and Jason Ortitay<\/strong> \u2014 were instrumental in crafting the 2017 gaming law PA enacted, particularly the online gaming component.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs the prime sponsor of the law, I am compelled to advise you that there was never an intent to limit the number of skins,\u201d the letter states. \u201cTo the contrary, the legislation I drafted specifically contemplates \u2018skins\u2019 in the context of plural and doesn\u2019t use the word in its singular context.\u201d<\/p>\n

The letter goes on to say:<\/p>\n

\u201cI urge you to consider the notion that limiting skins would decrease competition and protect only the brands of a few interests. Instead, we should look to increase competition, increase tax revenue and improve the quality of interactive gaming products in Pennsylvania, while at the same time improving customer experience by allowing for multiple skins per license.\u201d<\/p>\n[\u2026]\n

\u201cThe Board should not limit the numbers of skins, nor place conditions on how access to the skins occurs. This will increase revenue for the Commonwealth at a pivotal time, instead of limiting competition or placing an undue burden on how a patron obtains access to a skin.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Youngblood and Ortitay also caution that not only would a restriction on skins cost the state revenue, but since it would go against the intent of the legislation, \u201climiting the number of skins in any regard would be an unconstitutional usurpation of the specific powers and authority of the legislative branch of Pennsylvania government.\u201d<\/p>\n

Why is this an issue<\/span><\/h2>\n

As Online Poker Report<\/strong><\/em><\/a> has reported, at least two Pennsylvania casino operators \u2014 Parx<\/a><\/strong> and Hollywood Penn National<\/a><\/strong> \u2014 have been actively lobbying<\/strong><\/a> the PGCB to limit each online operator to a single skin.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, industry groups and New Jersey online casino<\/strong> operators have pushed back against Parx\u2019s and Penn National\u2019s calls for a strict limit on skins.<\/p>\n

In a letter sent to the PGCB, the pro-online gaming lobby group iDEA Growth<\/strong> explained that limiting skins would have multiple negative implications on the yet-to-be-launched industry.<\/p>\n