Spooktacular Bonanza

About Spooktacular Bonanza

“We continue to view regulation as the largest risk to prediction markets,” says the analyst. “While industry growth remains robust, adverse legal outcomes could materially impact sports contract availability and long-term adoption.”

Amid a string of losses in federal appellate courts, it appears increasingly prediction markets are angling to take their cases to the U.S. Supreme Court, banking that the high court will allow them to continue offering sports event contracts free of state gambling regulations.

Some legal experts and members of the investment community believe it’s possible the Supreme Court could hear a prediction market case at some point over the next six or seven months.

How to play Spooktacular Bonanza

The only market to report a loss for B2B during the period was the UK, down 8% to €59 million. Playtech said the market was impacted by “certain customer-specific changes and increased Remote Gaming Duty”.

Europe, excluding the UK, grew 2%. Overall, regulated revenue for B2B accounted for 83% of overall revenue across the segment, marking 21% growth, compared to unregulated.

Speaking during the follow-up analyst call, Playtech CEO Mor Weizer said regulated revenue would continue to grow, although the company would “continue to support those markets that we believe over time will become regulated”.

How to play Spooktacular Bonanza

Three months later, Judge Denise Cote ordered Papaya to pay Skillz $719 million in damages for poaching players from its skill gaming platform on the belief that Papaya had more players and therefore facilitated considerably faster peer-to-peer pairing times.

Papaya, headquartered in Israel, quickly secured a temporary stay of proceedings from the Tel Aviv District Court and filed a Chapter 15 petition with Delaware’s U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The Chapter 15 petition seeks to prevent Skillz from initiating collection efforts until its appeals play out.

Papaya concedes that it cannot immediately pay the $719 million judgment, arguing that allowing the company to pay the penalty over multiple years would “preserve … the rights of all parties.”