Riddle Of The Sphinx

About Riddle Of The Sphinx

Candidates from the VVD party urged the government to take a “harder stance” against these big tech platforms.

Van Bruggen told the gambling committee that both Meta and Google were open to maintaining a dialogue with the government on this.

She said the government would receive a report every six months on illegal gambling advertising across these platforms. 

What is Riddle Of The Sphinx?

Safeguarding has reappeared as a focal point for the regulator. In July of this year, ANJ imposed a €500,000 ($572,797) fine on an unnamed online betting operator, referred to as Company X, for not adequately identifying and supporting customers exhibiting signs of problematic gambling. 

The fine followed an investigation that found Company X had failed to correctly identify 29 high-risk players at an appropriate risk level. Six players were missed entirely and 23 were misclassified at a lower risk tier. 

The regulator also launched a public awareness campaign earlier this year during the 2026 World Cup to warn of potential gambling addiction risks associated with increased sports betting during the tournament. 

What is Riddle Of The Sphinx?

On Wednesday, New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport announced that her office had filed a petition for writ of certiorari following an appeals court verdict from earlier this year that went in favour of prediction markets. That 2-1 verdict from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was handed down in April, and New Jersey had until Thursday to petition the high court.

The petition poses the question of whether the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was enacted in 2010 in the aftermath of the Great Recession, “preempted states from regulating sports bets that occur within their jurisdictions if those bets are offered on markets registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission”. Prediction markets have argued that their event contracts are financial derivatives regulated by the CFTC whereas many states contend that they are simply sports bets by another name.

There is no guarantee the Supreme Court will hear the case but a separate appeals court ruling from 28 August bolsters its chances. In that case, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously in favour of the state of Nevada, creating a circuit court split, which is a hallmark of many Supreme Court cases.