Are We Regulated?

Sharpway Sports Consulting > Are We Regulated?

Do We Require Regulatory Licenses for Our Business Model in USA and Canada?

Below is a comprehensive breakdown of the legal proof that our business model does not involve any prohibited activities and does not contravene any prohibitions in Canada or The United States. Our Company’s adherence to each territory’s principles supports the lawfulness of our business model.

 

Canadian Regulatory Requirements

 

Below are the key excerpts that provide legal proof that our company does not need to be licensed by a regulator in Canada and that our business model is lawful:

1. Criminal Code Compliance:

  • “If the activities the Company expects to carry out pursuant to the Model are prohibited by any of the provisions of Part VII of the Code, the Company would only be able to lawfully do so under licences issued by the provincial governments. … In our view, for the reasons set forth herein, the Model does not involve any such prohibited activities.”
  • “The services offered pursuant to the Model would likely be held to be ‘equivocal’ and therefore not contrary to any of the prohibitions in Part VII of the Code.”

2. Use of Equivocal Services:

  • “The services to be provided to persons in Canada under the Model are equivocal. They are equally useful for use in sports betting that takes place lawfully in Canada pursuant to s. 207(1)(a) of the Code, as they would be to a person betting using sports book websites that are not regulated by provincial authorities or to a person using an unlicensed local ‘bookie.'”

3. Provincial Gaming Regulatory Legislation:

  • “As a consequence of the finding that the activities contemplated under the Model will not contravene any of the prohibitions in Part VII of the Code, no registration or licensure is required under any provincial gaming legislation for the Company to operate the Model and provide its services and products to consumers in Canada.”

4. Explicit Exemption in Section 207(1)(h):

  • “In the highly unlikely circumstance where the Model is held to be a violation of a provision of Part VII of the Code, the explicit exemption in ss. 207(1)(h) of the Code would apply. This exemption provides that the Company is permitted to ‘make or print’ the predictions of outcomes based on sports betting analysis that are the subject matter of the Model, on the basis that this subject matter ‘is to be used in a place where it is or would, if certain conditions provided by law are met, be lawful to use such a thing.'”

5. Marketing and Advertising Restrictions:

  • “Marketing, advertising, and promotions should be truthful, shall not mislead players or misrepresent the Company’s services. … The Company’s adherence to these principles further supports the lawfulness of the business model.”

Summary:

The analysis confirms that the company’s model of selling sports betting predictions is lawful and does not require licensing, provided it complies with the outlined regulatory and advertising standards. The company’s operations are framed as providing services that are “equivocal” and lawful under Canadian law when used in connection with regulated sports betting. Moreover, the explicit exemptions in the Criminal Code bolster the model’s legality when the predictions are intended for lawful uses.

 

 

United States Regulatory Requirements

Below are the key excerpts that provide legal proof that our company does not need to be licensed by a regulator in the United States and that our business model is lawful:

  1. Commercial Speech Protection:
    • “In the United States, so long as the information being conveyed by the Model is not deceptive and does not promote wagering with illegal bookmakers, the Model is protected by the commercial speech doctrine.”
    • “Truthful, non-deceptive information about gaming that does not concern the promotion of illegal gambling is entitled to constitutional protection from unwarranted government regulation or limitation.”
    • Citing Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass’n v. U.S., 522 U.S. 173 (1999), it is noted that the Supreme Court rejected restrictions on truthful, non-deceptive commercial speech related to lawful activities.
  2. Absence of Key Gambling Elements:
    • “The Model does not involve the acceptance of wagers or the promotion of sites that accept wagers. Therefore, the Federal Wire Act, the Illegal Gambling Business Act, and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act should not apply to the Model.”
  3. State Law Implications:
    • “State prohibitions and regulations related to the establishment of odds or the provision of services to bookmakers should not apply.”
  4. General Legal Framework:
    • “In most, but not all, states, when any one of the three elements (consideration, chance, or prize) is missing, the activity is not considered gambling.”
    • The letter emphasizes that the business model lacks these gambling elements, particularly the acceptance of wagers or direct involvement with illegal bookmakers.
  5. Business Model Safeguards:
    • “The Company will not carry advertising for sports books that are not licensed in the U.S. by U.S. states to engage in sports betting.”
    • “The Company will not promote sports books to U.S. bettors and will not provide sportsbook links to U.S. users.”

These statements collectively provide legal justification for the company’s operation within the described framework, emphasizing its compliance with federal and state laws governing gambling. The commercial speech doctrine specifically protects the business’s rights as long as the information provided is accurate and lawful.