I've blogged before about the General Assembly's latest effort to eradicate internet sweepstakes. Because G.S. 14-306.4 went into effect yesterday, I've had lots of questions about the law. (I even made a brief television appearance -- apparently, my 15 minutes seconds of fame.) My colleague Chris McLaughlin posted about the controversy in this area yesterday on the School of Government's excellent local government law blog. I've pasted relevant portions of his post below, followed by a few additional thoughts of my own. (His area of expertise is local government taxation; I've edited out the tax-specific parts of his analysis, but if you want to see the whole post, it's here.) Just like Cinderella’s magic, internet sweepstakes businesses were supposed to disappear at the stroke of midnight last night when a new criminal ban took effect. Not sure about what’s happening in your neighborhood, but the internet sweepstakes place I pass while commuting to work was open for business as usual this morning. A split decision issued last week by a judge in Guilford County is the likely reason that all internet sweepstakes businesses haven’t yet turned into pumpkins. . . . Several sweepstakes operators challenged the new law before Guilford County Superior Court Judge Craig, who had previously ruled that existing slot machine and gambling bans did not apply to internet sweepstakes. The operators claimed that the definition of “entertaining display” was too broad and therefore the new law violated the First Amendment. Last week Judge Craig issued what appears to [...]
Faculty Coordinators
