The Social and Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA) has submitted testimony regarding Indiana House Bill 1052, describing the legislation as an "overly broad attempt" to safeguard residents from "bad actors" in social plus gaming.
"Social Plus games are a safe, legal form of entertainment that has been operating responsibly in Indiana since 2012," SGLA Managing Director Sean Ostrow said.
"HB 1052, as currently written, would criminalize law-abiding businesses while doing little to stop illegal operators who exploit consumers. The hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers who enjoy these games deserve a regulated environment that protects them and preserves choice."
House Bill 1052 was originally brought forth by Indiana Representative Ethan Manning on December 5 and looks to prohibit sweepstakes casinos utilizing dual-currency payment systems and simulating casino-style games, lottery games, bingo and sports betting.
While the penalty for operators found to be in violation of House Bill 1052 includes a civil penalty of $100,000, the legislation fails to provide language as to whether criminal action would be carried out for suppliers or affiliates of sweepstakes casinos.
ARB Interactive CFO Dan Marks also submitted testimony, having said, "HB 1052 is an overly broad attempt to protect consumers from bad actors that will continue to prey on consumers whether the bill is passed or not.
"If it does pass, consumers will be in more danger as legitimate companies like ARB cease operations and our players drift to offshore sites that operate illegally."
Virtual Gaming World (VGW) Chief Growth Officer Lloyd Melnick believes the legislation, as currently written, showcases that Indiana "is not open to digital innovation and competition."
The SGLA would go on to propose regulatory framework for social plus games in Indiana with an estimated yearly revenue of over $20m.
The framework also includes player purchase taxes and operator registration fees, as well as age verification enforcement, data privacy and responsible gameplay protections.
In the wake of New York's ban on sweepstakes and social plus games, SGLA responded by labelling the decision 'rushed' on December 8, citing the loss of significant potential financial contributions to the state
