One of the primary issues in the discourse surrounding the management of digital platforms and safeguards for consumers is the assumption that regulation is always set at a national level. While this can be true in some cases, it’s not a foregone conclusion, and can incorrectly simplify what’s a complex combination of local bureaucracies.
By far the best example of this is the regulation of online entertainment platforms in the United States. While some regulations are imposed on a national (federal) level, the country has delegated certain legislative powers to state-level governments, creating 50 different rule books where many people outside of the US assume there’s 1. Getting to grips with the nuances of digital federalism in the entertainment landscape improves understanding that can be transferred to more impactful topics, such as AI.
America’s fractured online platform regulation
Nowhere is the example of devolved powers more apparent than the US’s stance on regulated online entertainment. While the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006 didn’t specifically outlaw online activity of this kind, it effectively ended the participation of overseas platforms in the US market, leaving the country without a unified framework for more than half a decade.
In 2013, Nevada became the first state to introduce a legal framework for online entertainment platforms with the passing of AB 114, which gave local regulators the power to offer state-issued licenses to operators. This brought back a way for (at least some) US residents to access regulated online platforms in a controlled environment. At the time of writing, a further 8 states have introduced similar frameworks – New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Maine – but even among these states, legislation is not uniform.
Three of the 9 states; Rhode Island, Maine, and Connecticut, have not signed the Multi-State Internet Gaming Agreement, which would allow them to share user pools across state lines. The lack of shared access means that none of these states have managed to attract major platforms, leaving residents without a regulated online service of this type. Even within the member states, the available platforms are not universal and vary between jurisdictions, creating inequality in the available options.
This lack of uniformity between states where online services are legally available highlights how dangerous it can be to assume homogeneity of digital content and online platforms across a single country.
The wider lesson to learn
Even after a brief run through of the differences in online platform regulation across the US, it’s clear to see that it’s not a long-term viable solution. Having a disparate set of regulations that can change dramatically by moving 100 yards into the next state is inherently unfair; “Why should the guy down the street get access to a regulated online service, but not me?”
A clear set of rules implemented at the national level is the most sensible solution for regulating online entertainment platforms and other forms of digital content. Nationalising these regulations allows for equitable access to various forms of entertainment and prevents punishing people based on where they decide to live.
Tracking state regulations
Until a time where digital media regulations are managed at a national level, it’s important to find a reliable source of info for the latest changes in state legislation. One example of a trusted and neutral source of state regulations is LegalUSPokerSites; they offer detailed breakdowns of state regulations which can be accessed via a map of the country.
Given the acceleration of online platform regulation over the past decade, we expect more states to introduce similar frameworks and potentially join interstate agreements. We recommend checking the latest legislation to make sure you stay on the right side of the law.
This article was written in cooperation with Amanda Antunes