Santa Anita Park in California is taking its dispute with the California law enforcement to court after 26 Racing On Demand betting machines were seized. The operator, Los Angeles Turf Club, has filed for an injunction and civil lawsuit with the Los Angeles Superior Court, requesting the judge to prohibit the destruction of these terminals and declare that the underlying betting system complies with California law. The controversy arose during the operation of the racetrack, where Department of Justice personnel publicly seized the machines, which had only been operational for about two days, with the core disagreement focusing on the legal nature of the betting machines and the legality of the seizure process. Related horse racing betting compliance disputes and legal cases can be referenced on the PASA official website.
Seizure Dispute: Unlicensed Raid + 30-Day Destruction Period Causes Dissatisfaction
The Department of Justice's seizure actions, from procedure to outcome, have been strongly questioned by the racetrack:
Baseless raid: 21 DOJ employees and 2 armed personnel conducted a "surprise inspection" at the venue, seizing machines without presenting a search warrant or specifying the regulations violated. When racetrack staff requested documentation, they were informed "no warrant needed";
Tight notification period for destruction: On January 17, the DOJ issued a notice demanding that if no legal intervention occurred within 30 days, the seized betting machines would be destroyed, and the seized funds would be transferred to the treasury of Arcadia;
Business and reputation damage: The racetrack claims that the public seizure violated the Constitution, not only disrupting normal operations but also damaging the brand's reputation in front of customers, questioning why an order to cease operations was not issued first, instead opting for a "raid-style" seizure.
Core Focus: Legal Dispute Over 3×3 Betting
The core dispute between the parties is a wagering mode called "3×3 Betting" (also known as Triple Trio):
Clear betting rules: Players must bet 1 dollar, selecting the top three finishers from three completed six-horse races, using the pari-mutuel mode to calculate the winnings;
Legal authorization basis: This betting method was approved by the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) in 2024, and the racetrack has been operating the same mode on-site for about 18 months;
Racetrack's stance: Offering betting via self-service terminals on completed races does not change its legal nature. "Neither the Attorney General's office nor the CHRB has ever objected to our legal analysis, nor have they said that 3×3 betting on completed races is not allowed."
Legal Support: Historical Precedents + Regulatory Communication Endorsement
The racetrack's lawsuit is not without basis, but is supported by clear legal precedents and communication records:
Historical legal opinions: Citing a 2006 opinion from the California Legislative Counsel's office on "Instant Racing," which clearly stated that such betting machines based on completed races are skill-based, the outcomes are not determined by the machine randomly, and are not considered slot machines, consistent with live horse racing betting machines, and the California Constitution does not require horse racing to be live or synchronous;
Multiple regulatory communications: Before installing the betting machines, the racetrack had multiple discussions with CHRB officials and representatives from Governor Gavin Newsom's office, including meetings with CHRB Executive Director Scott Chaney on November 25, and follow-up meetings on December 11 and 21, during which no objections were received.
Opposing Stances: Fundamental Disagreement on the Nature of Betting Machines
Regarding the legal nature of the betting machines, the racetrack and the Department of Justice hold completely opposite views:
DOJ stance: Classifies the Racing On Demand terminals as "illegal slot machines," claiming that the racetrack is a "site of ongoing criminal activity," thus the unlicensed seizure is justified;
Racetrack stance: Insists that the mode is a legal pari-mutuel, essential for the financial stability of horse racing, with legal demands including declaring 3×3 betting (whether live or on completed races) legal, prohibiting the destruction of machines, and returning the seized terminals and funds;
Industry disagreement: Those opposing historical horse racing betting machines agree with the DOJ's view, while supporters believe their essence is still pari-mutuel and should not be classified as slot machines.
Scott Daruty, Senior Vice President of the racetrack, expressed hope that the court would quickly hear the case and issue a clear verdict, given the 30-day destruction period facing the machines.
————
This article is from "PASA-Global iGaming Leaders," a gambling industry news channel:https://t.me/pasa_news
Original deep channel for gambling:https://t.me/gamblingdeep
Free data reports: @pasa_research
PASA Matrix: @pasa002_bot
PASA official website: https://www.pasa.news
