U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 57— INTERSTATE HORSERACING

15 U.S.C. § 3004

Regulation of interstate off-track wagering

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Consent of host racing association, host racing commission, and off-track racing commission as prerequisite to acceptance of wagerAn interstate off-track wager may be accepted by an off-track betting system only if consent is obtained from—(1) the host racing association, except that—(A) as a condition precedent to such consent, said racing association (except a not-for-profit racing association in a State where the distribution of off-track betting revenues in that State is set forth by law) must have a written agreement with the horsemen’s group, under which said racing association may give such consent, setting forth the terms and conditions relating thereto; provided,(B) that where the host racing association has a contract with a horsemen’s group at the time of enactment of this chapter which contains no provisions referring to interstate off-track betting, the terms and conditions of said then-existing contract shall be deemed to apply to the interstate off-track wagers and no additional written agreement need be entered into unless the parties to such then-existing contract agree otherwise. Where such provisions exist in such existing contract, such contract shall govern. Where written consents exist at the time of enactment of this chapter between an off-track betting system and the host racing association providing for interstate off-track wagers, or such written consents are executed by these parties prior to the expiration of such then-existing contract, upon the expiration of such then-existing contract the written agreement of such horsemen’s group shall thereafter be required as such condition precedent and as a part of the regular contractual process, and may not be withdrawn or varied except in the regular contractual process. Where no such written consent exists, and where such written agreement occurs at a racing association which has a regular contractual process with such horsemen’s group, said agreement by the horsemen’s group may not be withdrawn or varied except in the regular contractual process;(2) the host racing commission;(3) the off-track racing commission.(b) Approval of tracks as prerequisite to acceptance of wager; exceptions(1) In addition to the requirement of subsection (a), any off-track betting office shall obtain the approval of—(A) all currently operating tracks within 60 miles of such off-track betting office; and(B) if there are no currently operating tracks within 60 miles then the closest currently operating track in an adjoining State.(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection, any off-track betting office in a State with at least 250 days of on-track parimutuel horseracing a year, may accept interstate off-track wagers for a total of 60 racing days and 25 special events a year without the approval required by paragraph (1), if with respect to such 60 racing days, there is no racing of the same type at the same time of day being conducted within the off-track betting State within 60 miles of the off-track betting office accepting the wager, or such racing program cannot be completed. Excluded from such 60 days and from the consent required by subsection (b)(1) may be dark days which occur during a regularly scheduled race meeting in said off-track betting State. In order to accept any interstate off-track wager under the terms of the preceding sentence the off-track betting office shall make identical offers to any racing association described in subparagraph (A) of subsection (b)(1). Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to reduce or eliminate the necessity of obtaining all the approvals required by subsection (a).(c) Takeout amount

No parimutuel off-track betting system may employ a takeout for an interstate wager which is greater than the takeout for corresponding wagering pools of off-track wagers on races run within the off-track State except where such greater takeout is authorized by State law in the off-track State.

(Pub. L. 95–515, § 5, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1813.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Monarch Content Mgmt. LLC v. Arizona Dep't of Gaming, 971 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Monarch Content Mgmt. LLC v. Arizona Dep't of Gaming, 971 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 5× “Although simulcasts are offered “for the purpose of MONARCH CONTENT MGMT.”
Sterling Suffolk Racecourse Ltd. P'ship v. Burrillville Racing Ass'n, Inc., 989 F.2d 1266 (1st Cir. 1993). · cites it 5× “While this form of wagering is legal under the relevant laws of all states involved here, 15 U.S.C. § 3004 (a) prohibits such wagering at OTB offices unless three parties consent: (1) the track which conducts the live race; (2) the racing commission having jurisdiction to…”
Kentucky Div., Horsemen's Benevolent & Prot. Ass'n v. Turfway Park Racing Ass'n, 20 F.3d 1406 (6th Cir. 1994). · cites it 6× “” 15 U.S.C. § 3004 (a)(1)(A). This seems fairly straightforward.”
New England Horsemen's Benevolent & Prot. Ass'n v. Massachusetts Thoroughbred Horsemen's Ass'n, 210 F. Supp. 3d 270 (D. Mass. 2016). · cites it 5× “” 4 15 U.S.C. § 3004 (a). However, a host racing association cannot provide its consent unless it first has a written agreement with “the horsemen’s group” that sets forth the terms and conditions for the distribution of off-track betting revenues.”
New Suffolk Downs Corp. v. Rockingham Venture, Inc., 656 F. Supp. 1190 (D.N.H. 1987). · cites it 5× “15 U.S.C. § 3004 (a). In addition, the off-track betting office 6 “shall obtain the approval of .”
Churchill Downs Inc. v. Thoroughbred Horsemen's Grp., LLC, 605 F. Supp. 2d 870 (W.D. Ky. 2009). · cites it 2× “3 15 U.S.C. § 3004 . The horsemen’s group is defined as “the group which represents the majority of owners and trainers racing there, for the races subject to the interstate off-track wager on any racing day.”
Gulfstream Park Racing v. Tampa Bay Downs, 948 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2006). “See 15 U.S.C. § 3004 (b)(1)(A) (2000). This federal statutory requirement, coupled with the Florida Wagering Act's dictate that non-thoroughbred venues must contract with only thoroughbred venues to receive simulcast signals from out-of-state thoroughbred tracks, creates a…”
Lewis Stein Vs. Dep't of Law & Pub. Saf., New Jersey Racing Comm'n (new Jersey Racing Comm'n), 203 A.3d 160 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “, and the consent required under 15 U.S.C. § 3004 is obtained. The IHA therefore allows New Jersey to authorize account holders to place wagers with the AWS while physically located outside New Jersey if the state where the wager is placed permits such wagering.”
Cloverleaf Enter., Inc. v. Maryland Thoroughbred, Horsemen's Ass'n, 730 F. Supp. 2d 451 (D. Maryland 2010). · cites it 4× “¶ 29; 15 U.S.C. § 3004 (a)(2). With respect to the host state, an OTB facility must obtain consent from both the host state racetrack and the host state racing commission.”
Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2003). · cites it 3× “See 15 U.S.C. § 3004 (b)(1)(A). In Florida, there are five thoroughbred racetracks.”
Sterling Suffolk Racecourse Ltd. P'ship v. Burrillville Racing Ass'n, 802 F. Supp. 662 (D.R.I. 1992). · cites it 3× “Additionally, Lincoln has obtained the consents of the respective *665 state racing commissions, live tracks, and appropriate horsemen’s groups, to the extent required under the IHA, 15 U.S.C. § 3004 (a). However, despite negotiations between the two entities, Lincoln has never…”
In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp., 434 B.R. 131 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). “See 15 U.S.C. § 3004 . Thus, this factor also supports abstention.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.