Position briefs

Where each state brief lands.

No state brief identified criminal charges, or a civil case, against a game that had both mandatory pre-reveal and full pool, resulting in perfect information.

One mark per state, taken from the published legal-position gauge on that state’s brief. Use Detail to open that state’s Position Brief overview. These are editorial working positions, not findings of legality. Gauges on every brief were reweighed for that fact: optional next-result viewers and café pay-then-reveal cases do not, by themselves, hold a state at high risk. The last column asks whether charges were brought against a game that had full-pool reveal and mandatory pre-reveal. Banilla, Torch, and JD Prime used an optional next-result viewer after money was already on the machine. That is not this architecture.

High risk 7 Elevated 29 Moderate 11 Unsettled 3 Mod. favorable 0 Favorable 0 Strong 0 Never Challenged 50

State risk grid

State Detail High
risk
Elevated
risk
Moderate
risk
Unsettled Moderately
favorable
Favorable Strong
position
Full-pool +
mandatory
pre-reveal
charges?
AlabamaDetailXNever Challenged
AlaskaDetailXNever Challenged
ArizonaDetailXNever Challenged
ArkansasDetailXNever Challenged
CaliforniaDetailXNever Challenged
ColoradoDetailXNever Challenged
ConnecticutDetailXNever Challenged
DelawareDetailXNever Challenged
FloridaDetailXNever Challenged
GeorgiaDetailXNever Challenged
HawaiiDetailXNever Challenged
IdahoDetailXNever Challenged
IllinoisDetailXNever Challenged
IndianaDetailXNever Challenged
IowaDetailXNever Challenged
KansasDetailXNever Challenged
KentuckyDetailXNever Challenged
LouisianaDetailXNever Challenged
MaineDetailXNever Challenged
MarylandDetailXNever Challenged
MassachusettsDetailXNever Challenged
MichiganDetailXNever Challenged
MinnesotaDetailXNever Challenged
MississippiDetailXNever Challenged
MissouriDetailXNever Challenged
MontanaDetailXNever Challenged
NebraskaDetailXNever Challenged
NevadaDetailXNever Challenged
New HampshireDetailXNever Challenged
New JerseyDetailXNever Challenged
New MexicoDetailXNever Challenged
New YorkDetailXNever Challenged
North CarolinaDetailXNever Challenged
North DakotaDetailXNever Challenged
OhioDetailXNever Challenged
OklahomaDetailXNever Challenged
OregonDetailXNever Challenged
PennsylvaniaDetailXNever Challenged
Rhode IslandDetailXNever Challenged
South CarolinaDetailXNever Challenged
South DakotaDetailXNever Challenged
TennesseeDetailXNever Challenged
TexasDetailXNever Challenged
UtahDetailXNever Challenged
VermontDetailXNever Challenged
VirginiaDetailXNever Challenged
WashingtonDetailXNever Challenged
West VirginiaDetailXNever Challenged
WisconsinDetailXNever Challenged
WyomingDetailXNever Challenged
The last column is full-pool reveal plus mandatory pre-reveal only. No state brief identified criminal charges, or a civil case, against a game that had both. Banilla / Torch / Integrity Vending / JD Prime used an optional viewer of the next assigned result after a balance was already on the machine—not a full-pool reveal and not a mandatory pre-reveal.

A mark is a working-position rating from that state’s brief, not a court holding and not permission to operate. Counsel still has to test the exact architecture against that state’s statutes and cases.

District of Columbia is not in this grid. Each state name opens the corresponding Position Brief. The charges column is limited to games that had both a full-pool reveal and a mandatory pre-reveal. Optional next-result prize viewers and café pay-then-reveal machines are not this architecture and are not marked.