Legal area: Regulatory & Compliance

Task:
A mid-sized gambling boat casino in Missouri, which recently launched statewide sports wagering on 1 December 2025, would like to offer a promotion capitalizing on the recent press surrounding prediction markets by holding a “Paradise in Missouri” event in which patrons are able to make guesses at what they expect the weather to be like over a period of time this coming spring. Parameters will include things like high temperature (to one decimal point), highest humidity, whether there’s precipitation, and if so, how much, and similar data points. All of this will be measured at a weather station set up by the casino at its property, bought specifically for the purpose of determining the outcome of this contest. Entry will be completely free, but will require patrons to visit the casino property and swipe a rewards card (which at this property is used for tracking gambling as well as retail spending, dining, and shopping, and can also be used for retail and dining in the surrounding community). Predictions will be made on a kiosk in a non-gaming area of the casino, near a number of casual and fast-food dining outlets, and run on open-source software developed by a university for educational contests. The winner will receive a $500 voucher that can be used for dining, shopping at select retail outlets, or concert tickets, and can also be converted at a 1:2 ratio to non-negotiable casino freeplay (i.e., $25 from the voucher can be redeemed for $50 in freeplay).

The marketing team is very excited about this promotion, and intend for it to be the first major promotion they're running following the launch of sports wagering, though they’re aware of negative regulatory attention toward prediction markets and would like to avoid a direct association with the phrase “prediction market”. They intend to use phrasing like, “Win rewards by telling us what the weather will be like”, “Help us plan for a great summer and get rewarded”, and so on. Publicity statements will highlight the dining and shopping outlets at the resort, but also talk about their new slot machines, expanded table game selection, and most importantly, their state-of-the-art sportsbook opened in connection with the recent legalization of sports wagering in the state. They also plan to reference that the region surrounding the casino resort is dominated by agriculture, both directly and indirectly (since there is a huge support network of secondary and tertiary industries), so they expect the local population to be particularly attuned to the weather since it relates to their profession; however, they also want the many visitors to the area (which has other casino resorts) to be interested, as the weather is something that most people think they’re able to talk about and predict.

The legal and compliance teams have naturally raised concerns, especially given recent news out of states like Nevada and Massachusetts, where the sentiment against prediction markets is strong, but do not believe these out-of-state enforcement actions should have much bearing on the legal analysis for Missouri since it recently approved sports wagering in a statewide referendum. Such out-of-state sentiment will inform the analysis, since if legal outcomes uniformly point in one direction or highlight risks that would apply to Missouri as well, it would urge further guidance; however, we believe that this doesn't capture the unique economic and historical foundation of Missouri gambling law. The marketing team also wants to create a promotion that will be viable regardless of what happens with these out-of-state developments, such that even if a ruling comes down in a court case tomorrow, it won't impact whether this promotion can be offered.

To that end, please provide a legal analysis of this promotion that synthesizes the legal and factual considerations with respect to this promotion; explains key risks and assumptions that the marketing team likely took into account and can be provided to them for use in a presentation to property leadership; highlights areas where law and regulations are unsettled and would benefit from outside counsel review; and highlights areas which may benefit from consultation directly with the regulator or would require specific regulatory approval (which they can probably obtain, given the close relationship with the regulator. While the applicability of federal law is currently under legal dispute (particularly with respect to prediction markets and interpretation of the Commodities Exchange Act), as it stands today, there is no direct federal law governing the operation of in-state sports or casino wagering, so please focus on Missouri law.

Exclude any information published after December 1, 2025, the day that sports wagering launched across the state of Missouri, in order to avoid the rush of recent back-and-forth news on this subject (which is not necessarily going to bind any Missouri court or regular). The most useful precedents will be from Nevada, Michigan, and Massachusetts, which are the states that are dealing with litigation on this subject, as well as circuit-level federal caselaw.

Reference answer:
**Executive Summary**

The Legal Department for a casino operator (“the Operator”) has been asked to evaluate the proposed promotion submitted by the Marketing Department, which they have described as being inspired by the recent news regarding prediction markets and wagering on non-sports events. They are seeking input from us as to whether or not the contest will be permissible under the current state of Missouri law, and what sort of risks they can expect to be asked about when presenting this promotion to executive leadership. For the reasons set forth below, Legal believes that while this promotion may be technically within the boundaries of Missouri gaming law, it still presents undue risk for the likely-limited reward that we may be able to reap. For those reasons, we recommend against proceeding with it; however, if Marketing and executive leadership intend to run the promotion regardless, then with careful structuring it may be possible to proceed in a way that avoids violating casino promotional rules while also avoiding association with the controversial prediction markets that are currently the subject of intense press and regulatory focus.

**Legal Analysis**

**Background and Gaming Licensee Requirements**

Before getting into the details of the proposed promotion, we note at the outside that in Missouri, casino gaming is primarily governed by Chapter 5 of the Missouri Gaming Commission rules, “Conduct of Gaming”. Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-5.10 _et seq._ However, we must first consider the licenses held by Operator. Under the Missouri statutory structure, Operator will hold a Class B license permitting it to “maintain, conduct gambling games on, and operate an excursion gambling boat and gaming facility at a specific location.” Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-4.020. Given that Operator references highlighting its new sportsbook inside the gaming facility, as part of this promotion, we can also assume that Operator holds a Retail sports wagering license under Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-20.020(2)(A). Importantly, as a Class B license holder, Operator is subject to a continuous suitability requirement under Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-5.190, meaning that it has “a
continuing obligation to demonstrate suitability to hold a license by complying with all gaming laws and regulation.” And while the gaming license regulations do not explicitly define “suitability”, the sports wagering license regulations do, and they prohibit licensure of any operator who:

· Discredits or tends to discredit the Missouri sports wagering industry or the State of Missouri (Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-20.060(E)(3);
· Creates or enhances the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices, methods, and activities in the conduct of sports wagering (_Id._ at § 45-20.060(F); or
· Presents questionable business practices and financial arrangements relating to the conduct of sports wagering (_Id._ at § 45-20.060(G).

Thus, in addition to considering whether the promotion is permissible promotional activity under casino (gambling boat) regulations and sports wagering regulations, we must consider whether the promotion would cause any concerns with respect to this suitability analysis.

**The Promotion Does Not Constitute Illegal Gambling and is it a Permissible for Promotional Activity by both Casinos and Sportsbooks due to Meeting All Missouri Regulatory Requirements **

Having established the parameters under which the Operator, as a gaming licensee, must operate, we turn then to the question of whether the specific contest, as outlined by the Marketing department, would be illegal under state law or regulation, and in particular, whether it would be prohibited under the gaming laws applicable to Operator.

It is important to distinguish the case of _State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Globe-Democrat Pub. Co._, 341 Mo. 862 (1937), which is often cited in analysis of whether a particular promotion constitutes gambling and may run afoul of Missouri state law. In relevant part, that case involved a promotion run by a local newspaper in which contestants were required to review a series of 84 cartoons, each intended to represent a particular person, place, or thing, and submit a list of the what they believed were the titles of each cartoon. However, the cartoons were increasingly ambiguous, with little relationship between what each contestant might believe to be the correct answer, and what the correct answer actually turned out to be. Due to this ambiguity, along with the newspaper’s advertising of the contest as being one that “anyone can win”, and “requires no special skill, training, or education”, the court ruled that this was primarily a game of chance, and therefore, an illegal lottery. Regardless of whether the contest in _McKittrick_ constituted “gambling”, the Operator here already holds the appropriate state licenses entitling it “to conduct gambling games”, Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-4.020, and “to offer sports wagering in person to individuals.” Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-20.020(2)(A).

_Is the Promotion a Permissible Casino Promotional Activity?_

Therefore, the key analysis is instead whether the proposed contest falls underneath the rubric of Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-5.181(1)(A)-(E) , which governs promotional activities by Class B licensees. It’s most likely that this contest would be considered a “promotional game,” which is defined as, “a drawing, event, contest or game in which patrons of a Class B licensee may, without giving consideration, participate or compete for the chance to win a prize or prizes of different values.” Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-5.181(1)(D). As long as the contest meets the regulatory standards set forth in section 5.181, which includes prohibitions on false or misleading statements, a set of written rules and internal controls, a bar on employee participation, and compliance with all applicable rules and regulations, then such contest “shall not constitute illegal gambling activity.” Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-5.181(2)(B).

The collection of entry fees is another matter that complicates feasibility of this promotion. While there is a $2 entry fee requirement for Missouri gambling boats, this is a fee statutorily imposed on the licensee, not the individual. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 313.820. The licensee is permitted to charge the individual whatever fee they deem appropriate, which can be more than $2, or can be made complimentary; regardless, the same $2 payment is due by the casino licensee for every individual. _Id_.; _see also_ _Laissez le Bon Temps Roulette: Letting the Good Times Roll on Riverboat Casinos_, Fed Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Reg’l Economist, Jul. 1, 1994 (_available at_ https://tinyurl.com/mra9tn2b). If the Operator decides to collect the $2 fee (or its standard admission fee) from an individual who enters the gambling boat for purposes of entering the contest, the Operator is at risk of having this fee viewed as “consideration” for entering the promotion. The Operator is free to waive that fee (which is standard practice for gambling boats in Missouri), but if an undue number of visitors come to the casino solely for purposes of entering the contest, that risks the operator incurring a $2 charge for each entry, which in turn will diminish the return on investment.

We reiterate that Missouri regulation only permits promotional activity of the type contemplated here where “patrons of a Class B licensee may, **without giving consideration**, participate or compete for a chance to win a prize or prizes of different values.” Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-5.181(1)(D) (emphasis added). The act of entering the gaming premises and swiping a rewards card could certainly be read in the abstract as constituting “consideration”. Indeed, shortly after the _McKittrick_ decision, the Missouri Attorney General was asked to give an official opinion on whether a contest in which individuals could win prizes by answering a number of quiz questions constituted an illegal lottery, where entry was conditioned on purchasing a ticket to the movie theatre sponsoring the contest. The Attorney General advised that it would, in part because purchasing a ticket constitutes “consideration” pursuant to a prior Missouri Supreme Court decision, _State v. McEwan_, 120 S.W. (2d) 1098 (1938), as part of its analysis. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Official Opinion, Sept. 19, 1952 (_available _at https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/048\_1952\_0919\_Kennedy.pdf). The critical difference here, however, is that as noted above, Missouri state law _requires_ the payment of a $2 fee for every patron of a Missouri casino; if such fee constituted consideration, then it would be fundamentally impossible for any casino promotion to comply with Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-5.181(1)(D). Indeed, it is Missouri law that statutes are to be interpreted _in pari materia_, in order to avoid impossible or absurd results. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 1.090; _see also_ _State ex rel. v. Brown Builders Elec. Co._, 254 S.W.3d 31 (Mo. 2008). We must also acknowledge that, as the holder of a Retail sports wagering license, Operator is limited to offering "in person" wagering on the property of the gambling boat, and it thus stands to reason that its intended audience would be patrons physically entering the casino in order to wager on sports. Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-20.020(2)(A). This would, therefore, also require payment of the $2 fee by either the patron or the casino. Therefore, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the statutorily-imposed $2 fee for entry into the casino would be considered “consideration” for purposes of evaluating this promotion, lest it read the promotional activity requirements entirely out of existence.

As a result, we view the promotion as permissible, or at least not in violation of, the relevant regulations for casino promotional activity.

_Is the Promotion a Permissible Sports Wagering Promotional Activity?_

The Operator has recently begun offering sports wagering under a Retail license following passage of a referendum permitting sports wagering in Missouri, and issuance of sports wagering regulations which became effective on October 31, 2025. _See generally_ Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-20.010, _et seq._ Promotional activities for sports wagering are explicitly permitted under Missouri law:

- Retail licensees and Mobile licensees may offer sports wagering promotions, which are any events designed to attract patrons. Promotions include but are not limited to contests, drawings, games, player reward programs, coupons, giveaways, free play, and promotional credit offers. Licensees shall be responsible for the conduct of promotional activities.

Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-20.570(1). We highlight the reference in the regulation to “any events designed to attract patrons”, which means that the restrictions in this section would certainly apply to the planned promotional contest.

A sports wagering promotion has a number of requirements which must be complied with, in particular the need to generate a set of comprehensive terms and conditions (which we would recommend as good practice anyway, in order to avoid any disputes later about who is the winner and entitled to the prize), and the need to restrict participation by anyone under the age of 21 or excluded from gambling (including individuals who have self-excluded under responsible gaming provisions). Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-20.570(3). Given that entry into the promotion requires swiping a rewards card, and assuming that the rewards system follows standard casino management system protocols and flags any individuals who are prohibited from wagering, the latter requirement should be self-executing, and anyone either underage or restricted from wagering will be unable to enter the promotion.

There are also substantial disclosure requirements and content restrictions for sports wagering promotions, which may introduce practical concerns for the Marketing group. These requirements are set out at Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-20.570(11), and include things like a requirement that a compulsive gambling helpline contact information shall be “prominently displayed”; that any advertisement must “clearly and conspicuously disclose the material terms” of the promotion; and that it shall not “imply greater chances of winning versus other licensees” (which may indirectly prohibit statements like, “You can only win this at Operator”). It also may not target, depict, or contain imagery appealing to individuals under the age of 21. _Id._ at (11)(D)-(G). These are all routine requirements that operators around the nation regularly comply with; however, given how recently sports was legalized and launched in Missouri, these are all potential pitfalls for an inexperienced marketing team.

As a result, we view the promotion as permissible, or at least not in violation of, the relevant regulations for sports wagering promotional activity.

**Suitability Concerns Irrespective of Legality**

The Operator’s position will be that the promotion does not involve either prohibited wagering or promotional activity, nor constitutes sports and event wagering that would be prohibited under Missouri law. Therefore, because it is a permissible promotion under Missouri law, it should not implicate the suitability requirements for gaming licensees. However, the fact remains that regulators generally take a holistic view of a gaming licensee’s business activity, and especially given that Operator holds a Retail sports wagering license in addition to its Class B casino license, any questionable activity by the Operator could lead to an investigation (or reopening of a prior investigation) into Licensee’s practices. As a result, to the extent that this promotion is viewed by a regulator as violating Missouri gaming law, there is a strong risk of a license investigation which, even if eventually closed without adverse action, would bring significant operational disruption along with the potential for substantial reputational harm.

As any decision on the appropriateness of this promotion will ultimately be made by Missouri regulators, the fact that the promotion is targeted toward the history and culture of Missouri, rather than presenting as a random contest based on non-specific facts, will likely weigh in its favor. The theme of the contest, its direct appeal to Missouri residents, and its avoidance of direct association with the sensitive subjects of prediction markets and sports wagering all indicate an effort by the Operator to avoid conflict with its regulators.

The importance of incorporating Missouri-specific themes into a gambling facility is made apparent by Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-4.030(9)(A)(1), which requires a Class B applicant to disclose “the extent the boat recreates boats that are significant to Missouri’s riverboat history” as part of the licensure process. This section also references inclusion of a “Missouri theme gift shop” as part of the facility’s floor plan _Id._ at § 45-4.030(9)(A)(6). While far from conclusive, it does indicate that the promotion’s Missouri-specific theme – highlighting the importance of the weather and the environment to Missouri’s key industries; the nostalgia-inducing references to an idealized rural past; and the concept of Missouri being a sort of paradise as per the promotion’s name – may be positively viewed by local regulators.

In addition, as set forth above, it is unlikely that the proposed contest would violate Missouri law with respect to casino promotional activity. The contest **would** likely be considered an illegal lottery if organized by a non-gaming enterprise, such as a retail shop or (as in the _McKittrick_ case) a newspaper. While predicting elements the weather as set forth in the promotion arguably requires some degree of skill or experience, the specificity required (i.e., high temperature to one decimal point, highest humidity percentage to one decimal point, whether there’s precipitation, and if so, how much) and the length of the prediction period (the Marketing team hasn’t yet specified, but it’ll likely be at least a two-week period in order to reduce the likelihood of tie entries), coupled with the inherent instability of the weather, means that there will likely be a strong element of chance to the contest. The state-mandated fee for entering the casino, whether or not paid by the patron or the casino on behalf of the patron, would likely constitute consideration. And the voucher being awarded to the winner would certainly constitute a “prize”. However, as a Class B casino licensee, the Operator would need only to comply with the restrictions on promotional activity set forth in Missouri Gaming Commission regulations.

**Why Running the Promotion is Not Recommended Despite Possible Legality**

As the foregoing analysis demonstrates, it is unlikely that the proposed promotion would violate any specific provision of Missouri law with respect to promotional activity by casino operators. Nonetheless, the promotion still raises enough risks with respect to suitability that we would recommend against proceeding with it.

_There Remains a Substantial Risk of Fines Resulting from the Promotion's Novelty_

First, as highlighted at the conclusion of the previous section, sports wagering is new enough in Missouri that there are bound to be mistakes made by the Marketing team in their execution of promotions. This is common in every state, no matter how sophisticated the marketing and operational teams. In Indiana, for example, the state gaming regulator issued a half-dozen fines against major sports wagering operators soon after the launch of statewide sports wagering in 2019. Vixio Regulatory Intelligence, Indiana Fines FanDuel $110,000 For Fraudulent Account Funding, Sept. 18, 2023 (_available at_ https://www.vixio.com/insights/gc-indiana-fines-fanduel-110000-fraudulent-account-funding). To be clear, the foregoing does not necessarily indicate that the marketing team is likely to substantively violate the law; rather, the key issue is that any regulatory action is going to have high visibility to the general public, due to the newness of sports wagering in a state where, as discussed below, the referendum allowing sports wagering passed by a tiny margin. Moreover, the proposed promotion is admittedly novel, and does not align with any of the standard casino or sports wagering promotions that are commonly deployed, such as prize draws or promotional giveaways. The novelty of the promotion brings with it more opportunities for error, and with it an increased risk of monetary fines, regulatory scrutiny, or both.

_There is Substantial Risk in Being an Early Target for Missouri Regulators_

Second, sports wagering was approved by Missouri in 2024 by an extremely narrow margin of barely one quarter of one percent, meaning that popular sentiment is not necessarily in favor of sports wagering and related advertising. _See, e.g._, Andy Alcock, _Missouri’s pro teams, including Chiefs and Royals, win with sports betting legalization_, Nov. 6, 2024, _available at_ https://www.kmbc.com/article/missouri-wagerizes-sports-wagering-close-vote/62832563. Any missteps are likely to be the focus of intense public and regulatory scrutiny, and the risk is even greater with a promotion like this which is intended to have broad appeal across the state. Being one of the first sports wagering licensees in the state to be the subject of a regulatory inquiry would have very negative reputational consequences, and would place the Operator at risk of further inquiries (or even fines) when later errors inevitably occur. And given Operator’s position as only a mid-sized casino, it would suffer a proportionally greater financial and reputation loss in the event any regulatory violations are found.

_There is Substantial Risk of Raising Suitability and Reputational Concerns Even if the Promotion is Legal_

Finally, the suitability question looms over the Operator as both a casino licensee, and a sports wagering licensee. While not openly hostile to the gambling industry, Missouri is a fairly conservative state that, as noted, recently approved sports wagering in a statewide referendum by only the tiniest of margins. It is not hard to imagine backlash against a casino promotion that nominally seeks to capitalize on Missouri’s history of agriculture and boating, but in a way that is intended to benefit a casino operator. In addition, we have yet to see the approach Missouri regulators take with respect to regulatory violations by sports wagering operators, but if other jurisdictions are any example, they’re likely to take a strict view of any perceived wrongdoing. Missouri is already a state whose gambling industry relies on compliance with technicalities. For example, Missouri law only permits casino gambling onboard “an excursion gambling boat which, as nearly as practicable, resembles or is a part of Missouri’s or the home dock city’s or county’s riverboat history.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 313.812(3). However, the Horseshoe St. Louis, one of the largest casinos in the state, is only a “gambling boat” by the loosest of interpretations, constructed in a way to comply with the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. _See_ _Lumiere Place Casino_, Hunter Douglas Architecture, _available at _https://archive.ph/qX6n3 (last visited Feb. 23, 2026). Courts citing to _McKittrick_ in later years have highlighted its _dicta_ denouncing public lotteries as "especially vicious, in comparison with other forms of gambling, because by their very nature they are public and pestilentially infect the whole community. They prey upon the credulity of the unwary and widely arouse and appeal to the gambling instinct." _Tichenor v. Mo. State Lottery Comm'n_, 742 S.2d 170, 180 (Mo. 1988) (_citing McKittrick_, 110 S.W.2d at 713). Especially in an environment where sports wagering has barely been accepted by the state and its residents, and where there is ongoing political strife with respect to prediction markets (which offering wagering on non-sports topics such as the weather), it is too easy for this promotion to be subject to negative press, customer complaints, and in the end, regulatory action, which is likely to include a potentially-intrusive suitability review.

**Summary and Conclusion**

The promotion appears to be technically in compliance with the requirements of applicable Missouri gaming regulations, and prior cases in Missouri do not indicate that the promotion would violate other Missouri laws or regulations. However, given the newness of sports wagering in the state, the novelty of the promotion, and the fact that this fact pattern has not been squarely addressed by courts or regulators, we do not recommend proceeding with this promotion absent explicit regulatory approval, which is unlikely to be obtained via any formal mechanism.

Author's notes on the task:
As a legal professional working primarily in the casino gambling space, I wanted to come up with a prompt that would reflect my knowledge of areas that are currently in flux without a specific, accepted approach. Casino marketing immediately came to mind, as while there are certain promotion types that are widely accepted (prize draws, slot tournaments, freeplay given to casino patrons, etc.), I wanted to look at this from the perspective of a marketing team that wants to come up with a promotion that's innovative, capitalizes on interest in current events, and is distinctly tied to local interests. A promotion like the one described in the prompt requires looking at statutes, regulations, comparable practices in other jurisdictions, and understanding the view of state regulators and lawmakers. In addition, while it’s an general area that’s currently in the news, the task was written in a way that’s intended to avoid requiring consideration of recent developments; we want to have this be a durable answer that’ll be usable for this promotion type regardless of what happens tomorrow.

Why this scenario is realistic: This is a highly realistic task from the perspective of either an in-house counsel answering a question from an internal client, or outside counsel responding to a request from an enterprise casino operator customer. It has real-world consequences for the operator, both from a business perspective (in that being able to offer a product like this would likely be seen as commercially valuable) and a regulatory perspective (in that offering an illegal, or even questionable, product would not only run the risk of adverse regulatory action, but could have downstream effects on the company's reputation before its regulators). At the same time, there's no clear answer under the law, nor is there reliable precedent, so any answer would be based on a review of regulatory advisories, court decisions in Nevada and other states, and analogous regulations in other jurisdictions. Finally, and particularly for purposes of this exercise, it's the sort of question that in practice an company would not wish to spend substantial resources on legal advise to answer; if it was going to take hours of outside counsel time, it would probably be best to just skip the promotion entirely and not worry about it.

What makes it difficult: I expect this to be a 4 (though closer to the '3' side), because it's exactly the sort of question that would require analyzing a variety of external sources as well as the lawyer's experience with and knowledge of the regulatory landscape. The The lawyer would need to be aware of recent developments in Missouri law, not just as factual matters, but in the context of overall development of sports wagering, prediction markets, and local casino properties within the state and nationwide.

Reference materials: <https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneChapter.aspx?chapter=313> (Missouri gaming laws)

<https://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/11csr/11csr> (Missouri gaming regulations)

Scoring rubric:
rubric_category: Structure & Style Rubric
criterion: Organizes response into analyses of promotion under Missouri law and regulation, and as a discretionary matter falling underneath suitability requirements for gaming licensees.
justification: Required to meet professional standards and also serve as a practical, useful guide for executive consideration.
rubric_category: Structure & Style Rubric
criterion: Includes concise executive summary which frames the analysis in a way that can be presented to leadership by the Marketing team.
justification: Required to meet professional standards and also serve as a practical, useful guide for executive consideration.
rubric_category: Structure & Style Rubric
criterion: References specific elements of promotion as part of holistic analysis.
justification: Demonstrates substantive analysis of the promotion it is being asked to review, both as a way of testing the respondent's understanding of the issue, and as a way of making the resulting output useful for an executive who might not be previously familiar with the proposed promotion..
rubric_category: Structure & Style Rubric
criterion: Separately discusses requirements under sports wagering license and casino gaming license.
justification: The Operator holds complementary, but distinct, licenses.
rubric_category: Structure & Style Rubric
criterion: Includes references to Missouri law and regulations where relying on or quoting statutory and regulatory language
justification: Required to meet professional standards for advice authored by counsel; demonstrates to reader that all references are directly supported by citation to specific authority.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Explicit requirements
criterion: Identifies responsible gaming requirements and thematic restrictions on advertising set forth at Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-20.570 which may lead to potential compliance difficulties.
justification: Outlines concrete considerations for promotion and marketing design.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Explicit requirements
criterion: Identifies specific suitability considerations set forth in Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-20.060(E)-(G) as well as suitability as an overarching requirement for all wagering licensees per Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-5.190, and particularly for Operator as a sports wagering licensee.
justification: Suitability is a key factor in all decisions related to promotional activity by a licensed operator.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Explicit requirements
criterion: Identifies considerations for review of the promotional contest under Missouri regulations, including consideration of requirements for (1) promotions run by non-gaming entities; (2) promotions run by casino licensees; and (3) sports wagering licensees.
justification: Key factors which will guide the review of whether the promotion is legally compliance.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Explicit requirements
criterion: Identifies relevant regulations and statutory authorities for consideration of promotion.
justification: While the detailed requirements are largely found in regulations, there are also requirements set forth in Missouri statutes.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Implicit requirements
criterion: Identifies the potential conflict between the regulatory requirement that casino promotions be offered without the payment of consideration, and the legal requirement of a $2 fee for each patron, and correctly determines that under Missouri precedent, such requirements must be read in pari materia in order to give effect to each.
justification: The $2 fee is statutorily required, and if it constituted consideration would make meeting the promotional requirements an impossibility.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Implicit requirements
criterion: Identifies specific elements of suitability requirements which would be applicable to the Operator with respect to the proposed promotion.
justification: Breaks down suitability requirement (which is present in the casino licensing regulations, but not well-defined) into component parts set forth in sports wagering promotional activity regulations (which would apply to Operator and also likely reflect regulatory intent).
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Implicit requirements
criterion: References recent nature of sports wagering approval in the state and closeness of referendum outcome as a factor cautioning against running the promotion.
justification: Takes into account potential impact of public opinion against the backdrop of a general suitability requirement and as a component of the risk/reward analysis.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Implicit requirements
criterion: Identifies cost-benefit analysis of regulatory risks versus economic benefit stemming from the promotion, and flags it as an area for executive decision-making.
justification: Demonstrates ability to provide practical advice for a company decision-maker.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Implicit requirements
criterion: Identifies thematic relationship between promotion and references in licensing requirements at Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-4.030(9)(A)(1)-(6) to Missouri's history and culture as an element to be considered in the licensing review.
justification: Outlines concrete considerations for promotion and marketing design.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Implicit requirements
criterion: Separately analyzes requirements applicable to casino gambling boat licensees and sports wagering licensees.
justification: Demonstrates recognition that separate requirements apply to the same operator for different licenses
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Implicit requirements
criterion: Correctly identifies the importance of technical compliance with requirements set forth at Mo. Rev. Stat. § 313.812(3) and Mo. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 45-4.030(9)(A)(1)-(6) as an issue that has been raised with respect to Missouri casino operations, and that gambling operations are only allowed if they strictly comply with underlying laws and regulations.
justification: Important for acknowledging the difference between the letter and the spirit of requirements, and the way that Missouri has attempted to strike a balance between the two.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Implicit requirements
criterion: Identifies, analyzes, and distinguishes McKittrick case as an example of an illegal lottery that would not be applicable to the promotion at issue, which is run by a casino and sports wagering licensee.
justification: The McKittrick case involved determining whether a newspaper was running an illegal lottery, not whether a promotion by a licensed casino violated casino regulations.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality
criterion: Following separate analysis of casino gambling and sports wagering requirements, considers both together and uses each set of requirements to fill in gaps not explicitly stated in the other set (e.g., the suitability reference in the casino licensing regulations, and the expanded definition of suitability in the sports wagering regulations).
justification: Demonstrates ability to harmonize separate regulations governing the same licenses.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality
criterion: Identifies factors applicable to analysis under casino gambling and sports wagering promotional rules, and tests the proposed promotion against each factor or requirement.
justification: Demonstrates recognition that separate requirements apply to the same operator for different licenses, and properly analyzes the promotion across all requirements applicable to the operator.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality
criterion: Includes conclusion advising against running the proposed promotion based on suitability and licensing risks, taking into account sports wagering promotional requirements, casino promotional requirements, overarching suitability requirements, and risks related to public/regulator sentiment.
justification: Demonstrates synthesis of all relevant factors and provides a coherent summation.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Legal correctness
criterion: Correctly identifies that the operator, as a Retail sports wagering license holder, may only offer on-premises sports wagering, which in turn implicates payment of the $2 fee.
justification: The $2 fee is statutorily required for all entrants to a Class B casino licensee, and Retail licenses are restricted to in person wagering with a Class B licensee. Therefore, any review requires acknowledging that in-person entry will require payment of the fee, which if constituted consideration would make meeting the promotional requirements an impossibility.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Legal correctness
criterion: Correctly determines that recent approval and close referendum results means that there is likely to be a fair amount of skepticism on the part of regulators and the general public.
justification: Takes into account potential impact of public opinion against the backdrop of a general suitability requirement and the specific legal requirement that the Missouri Gaming Commission is required to evaluate gaming licensing and operations against what best serves the citizens of Missouri.
rubric_category: Sources and References Rubric
criterion: Uses proper citation format when cites to Missouri case law
justification: Many case references found in publicly-available sources do not follow Bluebook format.
rubric_category: Sources and References Rubric
criterion: Properly cites to Missouri regulatory provisions (including date of most recent update based on Missouri Secretary of State website)
justification: Like many states, Missouri uses internal references for regulatory provisions that do not align with Bluebook format
rubric_category: Sources and References Rubric
criterion: Identifies and consistently cites to other legal authority, including links to the sites where that authority is hosted
justification: Relevant sources in this case include documents other than caselaw and laws/regulations, such as a Missouri Attorney General opinion and a publication of the St. Louis Federal Reserve, which do not have standard Bluebook citations and would need website references in order to be easily located.
rubric_category: Sources and References Rubric
criterion: References and uses correct citation format with respect to Missouri statutory law
justification: Like many states, Missouri uses internal references for statutory provisions that do not align with Bluebook format. Referencing statutory law (in addition to regulations) is important to demonstrate understanding of the legal source for the regulatory framework.
rubric_category: Negative Rubric
criterion: Does not identify statutory provisions in addition to regulatory provisions.
justification: While the detailed requirements are largely found in regulations, there are also requirements set forth in Missouri statutes.
rubric_category: Negative Rubric
criterion: Does not highlight the $2 entry fee requirement and cite the relevant statute as a potential benefit to the operator and/or the patron constituting consideration under the relevant regulations.
justification: Many AI analyses focus on the element of consideration without taking into account the fact that the $2 fee is statutorily required, and if it constituted consideration would make meeting the promotional requirements an impossibility.
rubric_category: Negative Rubric
criterion: Does not distinguish McKittrick v. Globe-Democrat case as related to a non-gaming enterprise and therefore inapposite for evaluating whether the promotion is permissible as casino marketing.
justification: An AI is very likely to focus on the McKittrick case as it outlines a scenario facially similar to the promotion being discussed here, but does not involve a licensed gaming entity and is therefore fundamentally distinguishable.

Peer review 1:
Overall quality: 4 - Above Standards
I loved the fact intensity and the nuanced legal advice. It is limited to one US state (MO) and has some legal arguments in risk and considerations with limited case law support.
Representativeness: 3 - Somewhat Typical
Difficulty: 4 - Hard
It involved research and analyses of multiple laws and statutory provisions, factual considerations, public sentiment analyses, etc. It is fairly niche field of law that require expert knowledge.
Task specification: Overspecified

Peer review 2:
Overall quality: 5 - Exemplary
The exercise is very well constructed and enjoyable to read. It needs professional expertise to complete.
Representativeness: 2 - Uncommon
Difficulty: 5 - Very Hard
This exercise requires a specific level of expertise.
Task specification: Well-Specified