legal gaming Archives - ARTAEV AT LAW PLLC

Are Skill-Based Real-Money Games Legal in the United States?

Real-money games of skill vs. gambling

You may have heard that real-money games of skill – like darts, pool, puzzles – are not prohibited or regulated in the United States because they are not “gambling.” The reasoning goes that if the outcome depends on skill rather than chance, then it is not regulated under state gambling laws. This is false. Each of the 50 states have their own statutory definitions, laws, and regulations applicable to gambling. The states also differ on how much skill is required to exclude a particular game from the “gambling” category. Most states rely on the “predominance” test, where skill must predominate over the chance element. Other states use the “material element” test, where a game is considered gambling if chance is a “material” element in the outcome. A few states use the “any chance” test – where if there is any chance element present, the game is considered “gambling” and may not be offered without a license.

Payment Processors and Due Diligence

Payment processors – companies responsible for money-in and money-out of your app – also have their own set of due diligence requirement. Most reputable providers will require the legal opinion, copies of the terms and privacy policy, and even may require an internal anti-money laundering (“AML”) policy. Under federal law, financial institutions and certain high-risk businesses (such as casinos) must have AML policies in place. However, experienced counsel can also help with craft a policy that balances the payment processor’s standards with practical considerations and costs facing any starting-stage business.

Disclaimer: This guide is not intended to be and does not constitute legal advice. It is for informative and promotional purposes only. Do not take any action or refrain from taking any action based on this guide, and always consult with a qualified professional about the circumstances of your particular case. Each set of facts is unique and different circumstances apply to each individual business.

This article was originally published in 2020, but has since been updated to reflect current legal and regulatory developments in the skill-based gaming area.

Do Play-To-Earn Games Sell Unregistered Securities?

Play-to-earn game developers that sell in-game currency tokens or NFTs to their players may be inadvertently selling unregistered securities. Offering unregistered securities is illegal and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) may prosecute developers and obtain injunctions, civil penalties, and orders to refund all investor funds (disgorgement). Further, the investors themselves can sue developers (including as a class action) for securities laws violations, all of which can be financially devastating. Securities laws are a major factor to consider, but there are other applicable laws and regulations that determine whether a play-to-earn game is legal. Accordingly, it is absolutely critical to consult with an attorney specializing in play-to-earn and obtain a legal opinion regarding legal compliance before offering and selling any fungible or non-fungible tokens.

What do securities laws have to do with gaming?

Securities are traditionally associated with stocks and bonds traded on various exchanges. However, “securities” is actually a much broader term and includes virtually anything that a company sells to raise funds, whether to the general public or to a select group of high net worth individuals in a private placement. In the play-to-earn context, either the in-game currency token or the game asset NFT can be considered securities. Crypto/blockchain/NFT regulation is still at the early stages, but the SEC has taken an active enforcement role in pursuing fraud and illegal token offerings in the digital assets market.

Not all tokens or digital assets are securities. The uses a four-prong analysis called the Howey test to determine whether an offering is a security. More precisely, courts apply the Howey test and examine whether something is an “investment contract,” which is a type of security. The United States Supreme Court created the test in SEC v. WJ Howey, 328 U.S. 293 (1946), when it determined that a company selling shares in an orange grove farming operation was actually selling unregistered securities. If a token does not qualify as a security under the Howey test, it is generally considered a “utility token” and may be sold without the constraints of securities laws (but may still be subject to other regulations).

How do securities laws apply to gaming tokens or NFTs?

An “investment contract” has four elements: (1) an investment of money; (2) in a common enterprise; (3) with the expectation of profit; (4) derived from the efforts of others. With digital assets, the SEC generally assumes the first two prongs are met. Most, if not all, play-to-earn tokens involve an investment of money (either fiat currency or cryptocurrency with value) in a common enterprise (i.e. the game project). Thus, whether an offering is an exempt “utility token” or an unregistered security depends on whether the purchasers are led to expect profit derived from the efforts of others. In other words, does the purchased token function as a passive investment that pays dividends?

Of course, this is a very fact-specific inquiry. The SEC’s Strategic Hub for Innovation and Financial Technology (“FinHub”) has a rather complex set of guidelines and guideposts for the analysis, called the “Framework for Investment Contract Analysis of Digital Assets.” The SEC also relies on the DAO Report, which was a 2017 investigation of the Swiss-based DAO Project that explains the SEC’s application of Howey to digital assets.

In general, the determining factor is how the tokens are used. Do players actively use the NFTs they acquire to play the game and earn rewards? For example, an owner must manually enter the racehorse NFTs in Zed.Run (a hugely popular play-to-earn horse racing game) into various races, deciding on the best course type and distance suited to that particular “racehorse.” If the NFTs “wins,” the owner wins a prize, just like in real-life horse racing. Axie Infinity is another example of where players must actively manage their NFTs and “battle” them before earning rewards. Active in-game management likely negates both the third and forth prongs of Howey, as players purchase the tokens for in-game use and any rewards are not from the efforts of others – they come directly from the efforts of the player/owner. The same logic applies to in-game currencies that can be used to acquire in-game assets, pay entry fees, upgrade NFTs, and for other purposes. Simply put, while the in-game currency may certainly fluctuate in value on the secondary market, it is not a passive investment vehicle. It is an active “utility” component of a play-to-earn game.

Do staking and lending features affect the securities analysis under Howey?

As play-to-earn games become more sophisticated, so does the analysis. Many games now offer “staking” – which rewards players with in-game currency for parking their tokens or removing them from circulation for a set period of time. Additionally, NFT renting and lending are becoming more common, where owners let third parties to borrow their NFTs, actively use them within a game, and in return, receive a share of any winnings. The staking and lending mechanisms effectively enable passive income for token owners. Passive income is a hallmark of a security under the Howey test.

Play-to-earn games are a rapidly growing sector of the overall crypto and NFT market. It is critical for developers to ensure legal compliance, not only to protect themselves and their companies from crippling lawsuits, but to also make their product attractive to potential investors. In 2022, a comprehensive legal analysis of the play-to-earn project is a must-have for any pitch deck. Note that even if the token or NFT is not a security under federal law, state level “Blue Sky laws” may apply. Additionally, a token or NFT may be regulated as a commodity or under money transmission laws. In other words, the securities analysis is only part of a full legal evaluation.

Contact Dan Artaev by email or call or text to set up your initial consultation.

Disclaimer: This guide is for general informational and promotional purposes only. Nothing herein constitutes legal, investment, or tax advice. Every situation is different and faces its own unique set of challenges. Do not take any action or sign any contract until you have obtained specific guidance from a qualified professional.