Jerry C. Straus 

Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker 

18 19 H Street, NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20006 

Chris Anderson, President 

Sharp Image Gaming, Inc. 

9 164 Jordan Avenue 

Chatsworth, CA 9 13 1 1 

Re: Advisory Opinion - 1) Tab Force Instant Pull-Tab Ticket Validation System 

2) Multi-Tab Pull-Tab Game System 

q*' 

Dear Messrs. Straus and Anderson: 

This letter is in response to your separate inquiries as to whether the Tab Force Instant 

Pull-Tab Ticket Validation System (Tab Force Validation System) and the Multi-Tab Pull-Tab 

Game System (Multi-Tab System) are Class I1 or Class III games pursuant to the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act (IGRA). We viewed live demonstrations of both games at our office and have 

reviewed the materials submitted. Because the games are similar, and we viewed them together, 

we issue this one opinion for both games. We conclude that the Tab Force Validation System and 

the Multi-Tab System are Class I1 games. 

GAME DESCRIPTIONS 

1. Tab Force and Multi-Tab Pull-Tabs. 

Tab Force and Multi-Tab pull-tabs are similar to each other. Both are paper pull-tabs. 

They are constructed of two pieces of paper with concealed numbers. Certain number 

combinations are winning combinations entitling the player to a prize. The pull-tabs are sold to 

gaming facility operators in "deals" or "draws" containing a predetermined number of winning 

and losing tickets. The pull-tabs, when opened, reveal the number combinations and whether the 

1441 L STREET, N.W. STH FLOOR WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 EL: 202-632-7003 FAX: 202-632-7066 
player has won or lost the game. Printed on the outside of the Tab Force pull-tabs are the winning 

combinations and how much each pays. With Multi-Tab the information is either on the outside 

of the pull-tabs, or disseminated by way of a separate card, depending on the laws of the State in 

which the game is offered. Each pull-tab includes multiple separate plays for one price. 

The player purchases the pull-tab from either a cashier or a floor seller. The player can 

determine whether he or she has won in a number of ways. First, the player can open or remove 

the pull-tab window to reveal the numbers. If the pull-tab contains winning combinations, the 

player may take the pull-tab to an attendant for payment. The player may also have the attendant 

determine if the pull-tab has winning patterns. Either way, the attendant validates the pull-tab. 

With the Tab Force pull tabs the attendant does so either by the use of a bar-code scanner or by 

manually inputting the bar-code into a computer which verifies whether the paper pull-tab is a 

winner. With the Multi-Tab pull tabs, the attendant swipes the pull-tab past a laser scanner which 

verifies whether the paper pull-tab is a winner. 

2. Tab Force Validation System and Multi-Tab Svstem. 

Both companies offer machines designed to read the pull-tabs. If a Tab Force pull-tab 

player chooses, he may determine whether his pull-tab is a winner by using what is called a 

"Validation System." A Multi-Tab pull-tab player may also have his pull-tab read by using the 

"Multi-Tab System." With both pull-tab games, it is entirely up to the player whether to read his 

pull-tab himself or use the respective System ("System" hereinafter used to refer to both 

Systems). With either of the Systems, a player first opens or uncovers the pull-tab to reveal the 

" plays and then inserts it into the System. The Tab Force Validation System then reads the barcode on the pull-tab and validates it. With the Multi-Tab System, the system reads the pull-tab, 

and returns the original pull-tab to the player who then takes the pull-tab to an attendant who 

validates the pull-tab. Both Systems present a graphic display of each of the number 

combinations on the pull-tab one at a time as the player presses a button to prompt each display 

After the player has determined whether the pull-tab is a winner, he may insert another 

pull-tab if he wishes. When a Tab Force player is done validating his pull-tab(s), the Validation 

System retains the pull-tab(s) and prints a voucher which the player may present to a cashier for 

payment. At any time, the player may obtain a voucher by pressing the ''PRINT VOUCHER 

button. If he does, the Validation System will more rapidly display the remaining winning and 

losing patterns on the pull-tab and print the voucher. When a Multi-Tab System player is finished 

reading the pull-tab, the original pull-tab is returned to the player, who must then redeem it with a 

cashier. 

In both cases, the System does not accept cash, nor does it dispense cash. The Systems 

do not contain random number generators. In addition, they do not dispense pull-tabs. The 

Systems simply read the pull-tabs and display whether or not they are winners. The Systems 

cannot change the outcome of the game. The outcome is determined by the pre-printed numbers 

on the pull-tab. A player cannot accumulate credits for more plays. If a Tab Force player wants 
to play more games using his winnings, he must redeem his voucher and purchase additional pull- 

,I tabs. If a Multi-Tab player wants to play moregames, he must redeem his pull-tab and purchase 

additional pull-tabs. 

ANALYSIS 

The IGRA defines Class I1 gaming as: 

(i) the game of chance aornmonly known as bingo 

(whether or not electronic, computer, or other 

technologic aids are used in comection therewith)- 

(I) which is playcd for prizes, including monetary 

prizes, with cards bearing numbers or other designations, 

(11) in which the holder of the card covers such 

numbers or designations when objects, similarly 

numbered or designated, are drawn or electronically 

determined, and 

(111) in which thegar-ne is won by the first person 

covering a previously designated arrangement of 

numbers or designations on suchcards 

including (if played at the same location)pull-tabs, lotto, punch cards, tip jars, 

instant bingo, and other games similar tobingo. . . . 

25 U.S.C. $2703(7)(A) (Emphasis added). A pull-tab is commonly known to be a paper or 

plastic ticket containing hidden winning or losmg combinations of symbols that are revealed to the 

player when opened. As described above, the Tab Force and Multi-Tab pull-tabs meet this 

definition. 

Pull-tabs are considered a sub-game ofbingo. Furthermore, it has been held that 

technological aids may be used not only with bingo, but also with sub-games of bingo. Cabazon 

Band of Mission Indians v. National Indian Gaming Commission, 827 F. Supp. 26, 30 (D.D.C. 

1993), affd, 14 F.3d 633 @.C. Cir. 1994) ("Mnder the Commission's rules, technological aids 

may be used with the sub-games"; emphasis inoriginal). 

Wle the IGRA defines what games are Class I1 games, it also defines the types of 

games that do not fall within the definition of Class I1 gaming, and this includes "electronic or 

electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance.. ." 25 U. S.C. 4 2703(7)(B)(ii). Thus, to 

properly classify the game of pull-tabs played using the Tab Force Validation System or the MultiTab System, it is necessary to determine whetk either System is an "electronic or 
electromechanical facsimile of any game of chance," or merely a "technological aid" 

NIGC regulations provide: 

Electronic or electromechanical facsimile means any 

gambling device as defined in 15 U. S.C. 1 171 (a)(2) or (3) 

[The Johnson Act]. 

25 C.F.R. fj 502.8. Thus, the question of whether either System is a facsimile, as opposed to a 

technological aid, depends on whether it is a "gambling device" within the meaning of the Johnson 

Act, 15. U.S.C. 5 1171. 

The Johnson Act defines "gambling device" as: 

[Alny other machine [other than a slot machine] or 

mechanical device (including, but not limited to, 

roulette wheels and similar devices) designed and 

manufactured primarily for use in connection with 

gambling, and (A) which when operated may deliver, as 

the result of an application of an element of chance, 

any money or property, or (B) by the operation of which 

a person may become entitled to receive, as the result 

of the application of an element of chance, any money or 

property. . . . 

1 5 U. S. C. tj 1 17 1 (a)(2). Therefore, to constitute a Johnson Act device, a device must be 

designed primarily for gambling, and must meet the elements of either (A) or (B). These elements 

are commonly referred to as consideration, chance, and reward. Neither the Tab Force Validation 

System nor the Multi-Tab System meet any of these elements, and therefore neither is a gambling 

device prohibited by the Johnson Act. 

For a device to fall within the Johnson Act definition, it must first contain the element of 

consideration. This element is not present in either the Tab Force Validation System or the MultiTab System. No money is inserted into either System. Consideration is paid for the pull-tab, 

which is purchased separately and may be read, and a prize claimed without use of the System. 

The player has the option of inserting it in to the machine if he so desires. Although with the Tab 

Force game, a pull-tab which may have value is inserted, and the machine will print a voucher in 

exchange for the pull-tab if it is a winning pull-tab, the voucher is of equal value to the pull-tab 

winnings. The Multi-Tab System reads the pre-purchased pull-tab and returns the original pulltab to the player. 

Secondly, the "application of an element of chance" must exist for a device to be a 

Johnson Act device. Such an element does not exist in either System itself. The element of 
chance occurs when the player purchases the pull-tab separately from the machine Whether a 

I, pull-tab contains any winning combinations is pre-determined at the time the pull-tab is printed; 

the use of either System leaves nothing to chance. 

Finally, the Johnson Act definition of a gambling device includes the element of "reward", 

which is not present with either System. This element, also called the "prize" element, exists 

separate from the System. It is the pull-tab itself, purchased separately from the system, that 

entitles the player to a reward. The System does not deliver a reward, nor does it entitle a person 

to receive a reward. The Tab Force Validation System delivers a voucher, which is identical to 

the voucher which the player could receive by turning the pull-tab in to an attendant. The 

voucher is of equal value to the pull-tab that is inserted in to the Tab Force Validation System. 

The Multi-Tab System returns the original pull-tab to the player, which then must be redeemed 

with an attendant. 

Having found that neither System is a Johnson Act gambling device, and consequently not 

an "electronic or electromechanical facsimile" under IGRA, we turn to whether either System is 

an "electronic, computer or other technologcal aid" under IGRA. NIGC regulations define 

technological aid as: 

[a] device such as a computer, telephone, cable, television, 

satellite or bingo blower that when used-- 

(a) Is not a game of chance but merely assists a player 

or the playing of a game; 

(b) Is readily distinguishable from the playing of a game 

of chance on an electronic or electromechanical 

facsimile; and 

(c) Is operated according to applicable Federal 

communications law. 

25 C.F.R. $ 502.7. Both Systems fit the definition of a technological aid. First, they are not 

games of chance. The chance inherent in the game is contained within the paper pull-tab itself, 

and is not at all impacted by the System, As indicated above, whether a pull-tab contains any 

winning combinations is pre-determined at the time the pull-tab is printed; the use of either 

System does not add the element of chance. Both Systems assist the player in the play of the 

game by offering the player technological assistance as an optional alternative to visually or 

manually reading the numbers printed on the paper pull-tab. This feature may add an additional 

element of excitement to the game. Therefore, the System hnctions as a "technological aid" to 

assist the player in reading the pull-tab. 

Further, each System is readily distinguishable from the playing of a game of chance on an 
electronic or electromechanical facsimile. The paper pull-tab itself is the game. The pull-tab 

game is purchased separately and may be played separately without the aid of the System. There 

is, therefore, no element of chance inherent in either System. As discussed above, MGC 

regulations define "electronic or electromechanical facsimile" to mean any gambling device as 

defined in the Johnson Act. The Johnson Act requires that, for a device to be a gambling device, 

it must contain an element of chance. Because neither System contains any element of chance, 

they are not gambling devices, and therefore are not "electronic or electromechanical facsimiles." 

The Systems at issue here are distinguishable from those pull-tab machines which courts 

have deemed to be Class 111. In Cabazon, the court held that electronic pull-tab machines which 

"wholly incorporate" the game of pull-tabs are facsimiles. Cabazon at 636. Neither System here 

"wholly incorporates" the game of pull-tabs. As described above, the paper pull-tabs constitute 

the game. The paper pull-tabs may be manually pulled apart to reveal the combinations of 

numbers; the player need not ever use either System. Therefore, neither System "wholly 

incorporates" the game of pull-tabs. 

In addition, the court in Svcuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roachc, 54 F.3d 535 (9th Cir. 

1995) examined the "Autotab Model 10 1 electronic pull-tab dispenser" a self-contained unit 

operated by the insertion of money, whereby the player sees a video reproduction of a paper pulltab ticket. Id. at 541. The court held that the "pull-tab machines present self-contained 

computer games copying the pull-tab principle, and they are played electronically." Id. at 542. 

The court found that the games were therefore facsimiles. a. Important to the court was the 

fact that [the] "player is faced with a self-contained machine into which he or she places money 

and loses it or receives winning tickets after the electronic operations are conducted." Id at 543. 

Again, the Systems at issue here are not "self-contained units." The paper pull-tab must be 

purchased separately, and then may or may not be inserted into system, at the discretion of the 

player. 

Lastly, there is no Federal communications law that prohibits the use of this type of 

technological aid. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, we find that the Tab Force Validation System and the Multi-Tab System are 

Class 11 games. Further, they do not constitute gambling devices within the meaning of the 

Johnson Act, and therefore are not Class I11 games under IGRA. They are, rather, technological 

aids as that term is defined in the IGRA. Consequently both Systems, and other similar 

technological aids, may be used as technological aids to the game of pull-tabs as a Class I1 game, 

subject to both NIGC and tribal regulation. ' 

1 We note that other jurisdictions have analyzed the Tab Force Validation System and 

reached similar results. The Attorney General's Office of the State of Maryland issued an opinion 

letter, dated August 19, 1997, stating that under Maryland law the Validation System is not a slot 

1 lIW1lV 

6 
Please be advised that ths legal opinion is advisory in nature only and that it may be 

I-" 

superseded, reversed, revised or reconsidered by a subsequent General Counsel or Chairman of 

the MGC. Furthermore, if there are any changes made to the game as described, such changes 

might materially alter our conclusion. 

Finally, by issuing this opinion, we do not speak on behalf of the Department of Justice or 

the United States Attorneys who share enforcement responsibilities with the NIGC over gambling 

devices. 

- 

Barry W. Brandon 

General Counsel 

cc. Mark Nizdil, Triton Gaming, Inc 

Michael Cox, Esq. 

Kevin DiGregory, U.S. Department of Justice 

Jim Simon, U S Department of Justice 

Leslie Singer, U. S Department of Justice 

Doug Crow, U.S. Department of Justice 

*I,& 

machine or a gaming device. The Maryland definition of a "gaming device" is similar to the 

Johnson Act definition in that both require the three elements of consideration, chance and 

reward. In addition, the Colorado Department of State determined that the Validation System is 

not a gambling device under Colorado law, but is rather "an elaborate means for determining the 

winnings on a 'pickle' card [i.e. pull-tab]".