About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


2025 Op. Or. Att'y Gen. 1 (2025)

handle is hein.sag/sagor0088 and id is 1 raw text is: DAN RAYFIELD BENJAMIN GUTMAN ATTORNEY GENERAL INTERIM DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Justice Building 1162 Court Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301-4096 Telephone: (503) 378-6002 November 13, 2025 No. 8297 Gambling is unlawful in Oregon with limited exceptions.' The Oregon State Lottery asked whether several activities being conducted by private entities, through websites or online software, constitute gambling under Oregon law.2 We have set out those questions and our answers below, followed by a discussion. BACKGROUND As background for the following questions, assume that a business operates a website or application accessible to Oregonians that offers sports betting. Customers register for an online account by providing personal information and a payment source, such as a credit card. The customer selects one or more sporting events and chooses an amount of money to wager on the outcome. The subject of the wager can vary from whether a particular team will win at all, or win by a certain number of points, to more complex wagers that depend on the outcome of several different events. The business determines the outcome of the events by consulting official sports statistics and pays prizes on that basis. 1 See ORS 167.127 (promoting or profiting from unlawful gambling is a Class C felony). 2 The Oregon State Lottery is not subject to Oregon's gambling laws. ORS 461.030(2); ORS 461.040. This opinion does not address other elements of Oregon's gambling offenses, such as whether a particular activity that constitutes gambling is specifically authorized by law and therefore does not constitute unlawful gambling. ORS 167.117(24); see, e.g., ORS ch 462 (authorizing the Oregon Racing Commission to license and regulate race meets where the pari-mutuel system is used, as well as off-track wagering and advance deposit wagering); ORS ch 464 (directing the Department of Justice to authorize and regulate the operation ofbingo, lotto and raffle games and Monte Carlo events permitted under ORS 167.117); City ofPortland v. Duntley, 185 Or 365, 391, 203 P2d 640 (1949) (holding that the Oregon State Racing Act authorized pari mutuel betting at the race track or at race meets conducted under the supervision of the Oregon Racing Commission and therefore exempted that sort of betting from the scope of Oregon's nuisance statute, but did not exempt other forms of bookmaking or betting on animal races). This opinion also does not address issues of federal law, such as whether a particular activity falls within the scope of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 USC § 1 et seq. Furthermore, gaming activities conducted by a Tribe pursuant to a State-Tribal Gaming Compact authorized under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 USC §§ 2701-2721, are outside the scope of this opinion.