Abstract
In this issue of Gaming Law Review, we offer a look into the evolving intersections of law, economics, and innovation in the gaming industry. This month’s lineup addresses timely trends, financial intricacies, historical contexts, and a pivotal legal showdown with the potential to reshape tribal gaming rights.
Starting with our articles, Maira Andrade and Philip Newall tackle the phenomenon of “gamblification” in their piece, “Are Prediction Markets and Event-Based Contracts the Latest Example of Gamblification?”
The article explores how prediction market platforms blur lines between financial speculation and gambling, raising regulatory questions amid growing mainstream adoption. With election betting and event wagering surging, their analysis probes whether these tools enhance market efficiency or merely repackage risk in gamified wrappers—essential reading for policymakers navigating this gray area.
Next, Sachin Narayanan’s “Does The House Always Win? Sportsbook Stock Performance When Underdogs Win” offers a data-driven look at market reactions to upset victories. Drawing on historical sportsbook data, Narayanan examines how unexpected outcomes, like underdog triumphs in major leagues, impact publicly traded operators’ shares.
In our Commentary section, I sit down with Alyse Cohen for an insightful interview on historical horse racing (HHR) in Maryland. Cohen, a Maryland OTB owner, unpacks the legal evolution of HHR machines—from their controversial introduction as pseudo-slots to their role in revitalizing a hobbled racing industry—along with her efforts to legalize the machines in Maryland. We discuss recent court rulings, revenue impacts, and the delicate balance between preserving tradition and embracing tech-driven gaming, providing a grounded perspective on state-level adaptations.
In our Cases section, we have three Writs of Certiorari filed in August 2025 in Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States. This high-stakes dispute stems from Maverick’s challenge to Washington State’s tribal gaming compacts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), alleging they grant unconstitutional monopolies on sports betting to tribes, violating equal protection and anti-discrimination laws.
After lower courts sided with the defendants, these petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court mark a critical escalation.
The first writ, from the DOJ Solicitor General, defends federal oversight of IGRA, emphasizing tribal sovereignty and the Act’s intent to promote economic self-sufficiency for Native American communities. It argues that exclusive compacts are not discriminatory but a tailored remedy for historical injustices, citing precedents like California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.
The State of Washington’s writ reinforces this, highlighting the compacts’ role in state-tribal revenue sharing, which has funneled billions into public services. It warns that granting certiorari could unravel decades of negotiated agreements, potentially flooding markets with non-tribal operators and eroding state regulatory control.
Finally, the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe’s writ underscores cultural and economic stakes, portraying Maverick’s suit as an assault on tribal autonomy. Representing broader indigenous interests, it invokes treaty rights and IGRA’s protective framework, urging SCOTUS to deny review to preserve the status quo amid expanding sports wagering post-Murphy v. NCAA.
These writs collectively spotlight a growing tension between commercial expansion and tribal rights.