Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

NJ Online Gambling Measure Clears Assembly Panel

By David Gialanella
May 31, 2012

Legislation to allow online gambling in New Jersey continues to make progress, despite concerns over its constitutionality.

The Assembly Regulatory Oversight and Gaming Committee passed A-2578 in a 3-1 vote on May 10, a month after it won a Senate committee's approval. (See the Bill at http://bit.ly/Juc7M5.)

The measure would allow casinos to accept wagers via the Internet from gamblers in the state, though an amendment contemplates allowing out-of-state bets if authorities determine it would be legal.

The bill provides that computers, servers and hubs be physically located in licensed casino/hotels and be monitored and regulated by the Division of Gaming Enforcement.

The division would continuously monitor casino equipment for the capability to verify a bettor's physical location within state boundaries.

The committee's amendments, including the provisions for out-of-state bets, provide for a 20% tax on gross online gambling revenues, twice the 10% tax rate contemplated in the Senate version of the bill, S-1565 (http://bit.ly/JucPcg).

The committee also removed a horseracing subsidy that Gov. Chris Christie objected to in vetoing prior online gambling legislation.

Despite general support for the legislation, several lawmakers on voiced concerns that such a change would amount to gambling expansion beyond Atlantic City's municipal boundaries, thus requiring a voter-approved constitutional amendment.

The legislation's proponents have maintained that, so long as the servers and other equipment are located within the city, any online bet would be considered placed in Atlantic City.

Assemblyman Ralph Caputo D-Essex) cast the lone “no” vote, saying he does not oppose the bill in principle but believes the question should be answered in a referendum, citing legal opinions from the Office of Legislative Services and elsewhere that online gambling would require a constitutional amendment.

Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester), the sponsor of A-2578 and a committee member, said he would support racetrack gambling parlors “if there's a way to strike a concession” with Christie.

Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), the sponsor of S-1565 and prior iterations of the bill, told the committee that passage of the legislation could lead to suits challenging the law's constitutionality.

Lesniak added that passage would put the state in the forefront of legal online gambling, and allow other states unable to make the investment in infrastructure to partner with New Jersey, generating further revenue.

Christie vetoed an online gambling bill last year, saying a referendum would be required.

During a late May visit to Atlantic City to promote tourism there, Christie said he would try to get sports betting in the city before the fall, readying legislation after NJ voters passed a referendum last November.


David Gialanella is a Reproter for the New Jersey Law Journal, an ALM affiliate of Internet Law & Strategy.

Legislation to allow online gambling in New Jersey continues to make progress, despite concerns over its constitutionality.

The Assembly Regulatory Oversight and Gaming Committee passed A-2578 in a 3-1 vote on May 10, a month after it won a Senate committee's approval. (See the Bill at http://bit.ly/Juc7M5.)

The measure would allow casinos to accept wagers via the Internet from gamblers in the state, though an amendment contemplates allowing out-of-state bets if authorities determine it would be legal.

The bill provides that computers, servers and hubs be physically located in licensed casino/hotels and be monitored and regulated by the Division of Gaming Enforcement.

The division would continuously monitor casino equipment for the capability to verify a bettor's physical location within state boundaries.

The committee's amendments, including the provisions for out-of-state bets, provide for a 20% tax on gross online gambling revenues, twice the 10% tax rate contemplated in the Senate version of the bill, S-1565 (http://bit.ly/JucPcg).

The committee also removed a horseracing subsidy that Gov. Chris Christie objected to in vetoing prior online gambling legislation.

Despite general support for the legislation, several lawmakers on voiced concerns that such a change would amount to gambling expansion beyond Atlantic City's municipal boundaries, thus requiring a voter-approved constitutional amendment.

The legislation's proponents have maintained that, so long as the servers and other equipment are located within the city, any online bet would be considered placed in Atlantic City.

Assemblyman Ralph Caputo D-Essex) cast the lone “no” vote, saying he does not oppose the bill in principle but believes the question should be answered in a referendum, citing legal opinions from the Office of Legislative Services and elsewhere that online gambling would require a constitutional amendment.

Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester), the sponsor of A-2578 and a committee member, said he would support racetrack gambling parlors “if there's a way to strike a concession” with Christie.

Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), the sponsor of S-1565 and prior iterations of the bill, told the committee that passage of the legislation could lead to suits challenging the law's constitutionality.

Lesniak added that passage would put the state in the forefront of legal online gambling, and allow other states unable to make the investment in infrastructure to partner with New Jersey, generating further revenue.

Christie vetoed an online gambling bill last year, saying a referendum would be required.

During a late May visit to Atlantic City to promote tourism there, Christie said he would try to get sports betting in the city before the fall, readying legislation after NJ voters passed a referendum last November.


David Gialanella is a Reproter for the New Jersey Law Journal, an ALM affiliate of Internet Law & Strategy.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.