Exam Question Sample
Tuesday - April 27, 2010
Pasted Graphic
Nanotel, the nations 72nd largest national cell phone service company, has retained your firm to assist in vetting its new promotion that is designed to expand Nanotel’s market share following its acquisition of a patent on the method of playing networked card games over a cellular phone network. As part of the promotion Nanotel will begin offering the Meizu miniOne (an iPhone Clone) preloaded with a promotional networked poker application (see illustration). The promotion is called the Play-For-Fun Nantotel Worldcup of Poker and the client’s initial thoughts on the promotion are as follows:
Because Nanotel leases air time from T-Mobile (similar to Virgin Mobile and Sprint), T-Mobile has required Nanotel to get a clearance opinion regarding the proposed contest. Prior to asking for such opinion, Robin Banks, general counsel for Nanotel, asks you if there is any risk of violating federal gaming laws with the contest as outlined?
2.A Please answer. [15 points] Whether there are any risks of violating federal gaming laws or federal advertising laws with the contest as outlined and, if so, what risks are presented [be specific]?
After your answer to her first question, Robin mentions that the Caribbean Gem Casino, a land-based casino on St. Eustatius island, and PokerEmpire.com an online real-money poker site operated from St. Eustatius (that accepts wagers from any jurisdiction), have offered to subsidize prizes for the contest if the virtual table poker felt carries the Caribbean Gem name and logo and the cards feature the PokerEmpire.com name and logo. The prizes will be trips to the Caribbean Gem Casino for a live poker tournament and a $50,000.00 cash prize to the ultimate live tournament winner. Additionally, PokerEmpire.com will pay for the development and distribution costs of the phone software to make it happen. Robin asks if this changes your initial analysis and if so how and why (ignoring any potential commercial speech issues associated with the ad campaign)?
2.B Please answer. [15 points] Does the modification of the contest as proposed by Carribean Gem and PokerEmpire.com change your analysis (from question 2.A) with regard to federal gaming law risks?
Nanotel, the nations 72nd largest national cell phone service company, has retained your firm to assist in vetting its new promotion that is designed to expand Nanotel’s market share following its acquisition of a patent on the method of playing networked card games over a cellular phone network. As part of the promotion Nanotel will begin offering the Meizu miniOne (an iPhone Clone) preloaded with a promotional networked poker application (see illustration). The promotion is called the Play-For-Fun Nantotel Worldcup of Poker and the client’s initial thoughts on the promotion are as follows:
Because Nanotel leases air time from T-Mobile (similar to Virgin Mobile and Sprint), T-Mobile has required Nanotel to get a clearance opinion regarding the proposed contest. Prior to asking for such opinion, Robin Banks, general counsel for Nanotel, asks you if there is any risk of violating federal gaming laws with the contest as outlined?
2.A Please answer. [15 points] Whether there are any risks of violating federal gaming laws or federal advertising laws with the contest as outlined and, if so, what risks are presented [be specific]?
After your answer to her first question, Robin mentions that the Caribbean Gem Casino, a land-based casino on St. Eustatius island, and PokerEmpire.com an online real-money poker site operated from St. Eustatius (that accepts wagers from any jurisdiction), have offered to subsidize prizes for the contest if the virtual table poker felt carries the Caribbean Gem name and logo and the cards feature the PokerEmpire.com name and logo. The prizes will be trips to the Caribbean Gem Casino for a live poker tournament and a $50,000.00 cash prize to the ultimate live tournament winner. Additionally, PokerEmpire.com will pay for the development and distribution costs of the phone software to make it happen. Robin asks if this changes your initial analysis and if so how and why (ignoring any potential commercial speech issues associated with the ad campaign)?
2.B Please answer. [15 points] Does the modification of the contest as proposed by Carribean Gem and PokerEmpire.com change your analysis (from question 2.A) with regard to federal gaming law risks?