By The United States of America provides a wide range of online gaming platforms for users, and among them are interactive table games, slots, pokers, and as well as online casinos. However, out of all the states in the United States, only five of them provide these opportunities. For example, Nevada offers only online poker, and the remaining four states are Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Delaware, which offers a complete online gambling package to its customers.
Recently, the United States has been booming with online gambling, and it has more scope for growth. This growth can be achieved by online interactive gambling compacts, which can be legalized.
Two states which are up for this interactive gambling compact are Michigan and Pennsylvania. Both these states have shown interest in starting the interactive gambling compact. Hence, the Michigan Gaming Control Board and Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board are yet to confirm any restrictions in the Federal Wire Act restricting these states in starting the interactive gambling compact.
The main reason that is stopping the United States from implementing the interactive gambling compact would be the restriction mentioned in the Federal Wire Act. Earlier it was mentioned in the act that there was a ban only against online sports gambling, and this act was not applicable to any other gambling.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has chosen to interpret the Wire Act differently, claiming that the prohibition didn’t apply exclusively to sports betting.
As of now, the DOJ has been left with no choice except to rethink its position on the Wire Act after losing in court. As a result, the court has accepted that the Wire Act is solely applicable to sports betting in its decision.
An interstate compact may help both Pennsylvania and Michigan, but present state legislation is perhaps why Michigan is delaying. The Michigan Lawful Internet Gaming Act stipulates that interstate agreements must comply with both federal and state regulations.
There would be several advantages if the states engage in or form an interstate agreement. Considering the prevailing status of the Wire Act, both states Pennsylvania and Michigan might need to proceed with caution.
