G2E Panel Maintains Online Skill Games Differ Fundamentally from Retail Gambling Devices
G2E panelists distinguished online skill games, which rely on player-controlled factors and lack RNG, from retail slot-like devices. Regulators struggle with 1950s-1960s laws ill-suited to digital products that cannot be seized. The discussion urged self-regulation, regulator education, and awareness of social risks.
SCCG Take — Outdated statutes create enforcement gaps for online skill games. Operators and regulators need precise definitions to separate legitimate skill offerings from gambling without stifling innovation.
Panelists at the Global Gaming Expo on September 28 described internet-based skill games as a distinct category from the slot-like devices typically found in bars and convenience stores. The session, titled “Online Skill Gaming in 2026: Where It Stands and Where It’s Headed,” was moderated by Dustin Gouker of Closing Line Consulting. It featured THNDR CEO Desirée Dickerson, Topdog co-CEO Justin Narang, and former New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement Director Dave Rebuck, as reported by CDC Gaming.
Dickerson defined skill as elements within a player’s control that decide outcomes. Narang distinguished Topdog’s real-time sports games from gambling by noting the absence of any RNG. Rebuck observed that regulators often default to outdated statutes when assessing these products.
Regulatory Strain from Decades-Old Statutes
Rebuck said state and tribal regulators are working off laws written in the 1950s and 1960s, originally crafted to exclude criminals from gaming. These rules create friction for online applications that cannot be tested or seized like physical machines. He noted that skill games in Pennsylvania are viewed as slot machines embedded in five- and ten-cent stores, leaving regulators in “a very difficult position.”
Gouker added that games-of-skill laws are sometimes hundreds of years old. The panel referenced the New Jersey Amusement Games Law, which permitted skill-based offerings in retail settings such as Dave & Buster’s after lawmakers deemed the risk low. Rebuck contrasted this with online providers who seek permission in advance rather than forgiveness after the fact.
Risks, Self-Regulation, and the Need for Education
Dickerson called for industry self-regulation through protocols developed with the International Gaming Standards Association instead of placing the full burden on lawmakers. Narang insisted the sector follows gambling laws carefully and is not hunting for loopholes. The discussion warned of potential social harms, including the risk of establishing “kiddie pre-gambling” and the cautionary collapse of the billion-dollar iPoker industry after federal action on Black Friday.
Rebuck stressed that consumers must know what they are engaging with, while Gouker concluded that policymakers should discard prior assumptions because “this stuff is moving fast.”
Reporting: CDC Gaming
Generated by SCCG’s automated editorial system from published source reporting. SCCG Management holds editorial responsibility.
Gaming, betting and prediction markets — the desk’s read, every weekday.
Subscribe →