The hits keep on coming:
Major Payment Processor Demands That Daily Fantasy Sports Sites Exit New York
Chris Grove, November 11, 2015 07:39 PST
@OPReport
wp-post-image" alt="DFS Payment Processors" height="400" width="620">
In the wake of New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman’s
cease-and-desist order to
DraftKings and
FanDuel, a
major payment processor has instructed DFS sites to exit New York immediately, LSR has learned.
Sites like DraftKings and FanDuel do not handle their player payments (deposits and withdrawals) internally; instead, much of that work is in
the hands of payment processors and payment gateways that serve as a critical intermediary between players and DFS sites.
The request was sent yesterday afternoon to DFS operators via an email acquired by LSR:
In light of the cease and desist order sent out by New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman related to DFS this afternoon, we must require you to immediately stop accepting players from New York. Please acknowledge the receipt of this notice and confirm you are updating all location controls to block players from this jurisdiction.
Will FanDuel and DraftKings exit New York as requested?
I believe, but do not know, that DraftKings and FanDuel received the email above, as the payment processor involved is
utilized by the vast majority of operators.
Without access to these processors and gateways, DFS sites would be
effectively unable to operate. Bucking this request in New York could cripple the ability of a site to handle payments in other markets.
DraftKings and FanDuel may have an
overriding priority in New York that could cause them to delay compliance with the request. They could also return to the processor with
additional legal opinions or other elements that might mitigate the decision by the processor.
But barring those or similar scenarios, it’s difficult to appreciate how a DFS operator could remain in New York following this request.
Why would processors jump first?
Companies on the payments side of daily fantasy sports operate under a
fundamentally different risk calculus than DFS sites:
- They generally have a larger business beyond DFS that they must prioritize over DFS.
- They are generally required to be licensed and are overseen by governments in most, if not all, states due to their role as a quasi-financial institution. That gives them additional exposure to state and federal law enforcement.
- They have unique exposure to the UIGEA once a state law violation comes into play.
For those and a host of other reasons, payment processors and gateways are
incentivized to act far more cautiously on average than a typical DFS operator.
A similar risk assessment gap exists between DFS operators and their
marketing partners in professional sports.