567
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
567 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
1193 readers
283 users here now
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable
Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up
Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)
Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So they quietly just slipped a blanket VPN ban in there, too? Would be interested to read more about that part ...
Seems to be the intention.
They should go further and ban people from leaving the state, since that could also be used to circumvent the ban.
Luckily due to the United States Constitution, the states can't tell you where you can and cannot go. Obviously with the police they can do whatever the fuck they want but officially we can go over we want.
I mean you could make the argument that the commerce clause tells the state they can't ban VPNs. Ultimately it will be up to the SC to dictate the laws as they have been lately.
You know what, you're right one could make the argument that states don't even have the authority to ban vpns.
They can totally ban VPNs in the state. They can't ban VPNs out of the state.
It's kind of seems like that would be a state regulating interstate commerce. And international Commerce which is exclusively the Federal prerogative.
If they tried to ban a VPN outside of the state I would agree with you. Also, the way the law is written you have to know that is what the service is being used for to be criminally liable.
I will admit this could cause a chilling situation where VPNs voluntarily block these sites when a user can be determined to be from this state. I think that is their intention though.
Prior to New Jersey amending their state constitution to allow online sports betting in 2011, and mostly leading to the opening of online gambling we're experiencing now, enforcement was usually taken against the "casinos" rather than the handlers. Back then it was CEOs of the betting companies getting caught on their flight layovers and charged with the illegal gambling stuff.
Doubt the intention is to enforce against the gamblers for the reasons already implied here, like the difficulty of tracking and enforcing vpn monitoring.
These people have bank accounts. What not just pass a law saying banks can’t take payments from these sites instead of banning VPNs?
Because banks have a better lobby and pay better.
So do they have a business exception or are they just saying fuck everyone including businesses? Which would be surprising.
Hey what the fuck, good eye
"This section is effective August 1, 2026. Sec. 3. [609.7615] PREDICTION MARKETS. (a) As used in this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Athletic event" means a sports game, match, or activity, or series of games, matches, activities, or tournaments involving the physical proficiency of one or more players or participants. Athletic event includes horse racing as defined in section 240.01, subdivision 8. (c) "Esports event" means a competition between individuals or teams using video games in a game, match, contest, or series of games, matches, or contests or a tournament, or by a person or team against a specified measure of performance which is hosted at a physical location or online. (d) "Game of skill" means a game, match, or tournament, or a series of games, matches, and tournaments involving the dexterity or mental skill of one or more players or participants. Game of skill includes an esports event. (e) "Prediction market" means a system that allows consumers to place a wager on the future outcome of a specified event that is not determined or affected by the performance of the parties to the contract, including but not limited to: (1) an athletic event or game of skill, or portions thereof or individual performance statistics therein; (2) any game played with cards, dice, equipment, or any mechanical or electronic device or machine; (3) war, state or national emergencies, natural or human-made disasters, mass shootings, acts of terrorism, or public health crises, or the ancillary effects thereof; (4) any event or events happening to a natural person or group of people; (5) a federal, state, or local election, or the actions or conduct of the federal, state, or local government and the government's agencies, employees, and officers; (6) legal actions, including but not limited to a civil or criminal suit, grand jury action, jury trial, settlement, plea, or conviction; (7) the death, assassination, or attempted killing of a person or group of persons, or mass casualty events; (8) short-term weather events or conditions; (9) events in popular culture, including but not limited to awards and the date a piece of entertainment will be released; and (10) whether a person will make a particular statement. (f) "Wager" means a contract, including a prediction market contract, whereby the parties to the contract agree to a gain or loss by one to the other of money, property, or benefit. Subd. 2. Prediction markets; hosting prohibited. A person is guilty of a felony if the person, for consideration and as part of a business: (1) creates a prediction market; (2) operates, manages, or controls a platform or system intending that consumers will use the platform or system to make wagers in a prediction market; (3) intentionally facilitates the operation of a prediction market by: (i) identifying or listing events knowing the events will be used by consumers to make wagers; (ii) accepting, holding, or directing the disposition of money or other things of value for the purpose of allowing consumers to make wagers or to settle wagers made by consumers; (iii) determining, administering, or enforcing the terms, pricing, or settlement of wagers made by consumers; (iv) regularly or continuously acting as a counterparty to wagers made by consumers by entering into a wager, offering to enter into a wager, or taking a temporary position in a wager that may be replaced by a different consumer; or (v) setting or adjusting the prices, odds, or terms that apply to wagers entered into by consumers;
(4) provides data, information, or verification services, including the provision of event outcomes, directly to a prediction market knowing that the data, information, or verification services will be used to allow consumers to make wagers or to settle wagers made by consumers in violation of this section; or (5) provides supportive services to a prediction market or consumer knowing that the services will be used to identify a consumer's location, transfer money, or make or process payments for the purpose of allowing consumers to make wagers or to settle wagers made by consumers in violation of this section.
Subd. 3. Prediction markets; advertising prohibited. Whoever advertises or markets financial or technological products that promote transactions prohibited under this section is guilty of a felony. Subd. 4. Exceptions. Subdivision 2 does not apply to: (1) activities that are not bets under section 609.75, subdivision 3; and (2) contracts authorized and regulated under chapters 59A to 79A."
The way I read it is a VPN provider should block users in this state from connecting to prediction betting sites to be safe.
Here is the relevant text of the signed bill SF4760, make your judgement as you will:
...
So they'd have to prove that the VPN provider somehow knew the user's intention? It will they just steamroll over the facts and claim that any provider should assume that?
Good questions. At a minimum any VPN marketing in MN would need to tiptoe around claims that you can watch region locked content as if you were there.
Personally, I think VPNs that don’t receive or keep customers' info and logs could have a credible argument that they don't know whether their customers use it for prediction markets or not.
Cue laws that VPNs monitor their clients' traffic
My guess is they're shooting for VPNs that operate in the state to DNS block the big markets.
How else are they going to ban prediction markets if people can pretend they aren't in Minnesota?
VPNs have many legitimate use cases though, unlike prediction markets.
I think the ban is on using VPNs to circumvent the prediction market prohibition, not on using VPNs whatsoever.
This is how I read it.
I would think VPN usage in this case could be proven without the VPN giving anything up, depending on what the poly market logs. If they log that a bet occured with X person at Y time from an IP that's from another state or known to be a VPN IP address... And all proof shows they were 100% at home in MN. Then a case could be made they used a VPN to trick the poly market into accepting the bet. Then, boom, another charge added on.
Or if the poly market itself teaches people how to vpn to get around the ban... they would see more charges.
Trace the financial transactions, which can't fully be hidden by a VPN.
Sure, a Minnesota resident could use a VPN to go to a prediction market gambling site ... but when they pay money to make their bet or receive money from a bet that pays out, those financial transactions should be traceable to and from Minnesota.
Don't they often take crypto currency though?
I'll start off by saying I'm not sure if prediction markets take crypto or not. However, even if they did, there's not really any crypto brokers that don't follow KYC (know your customer) policies. It would require a subpoena to get the information about a specific customer, but the ledger is public, so you can see everyone's transactions.
Some do, sure, and those will probably remain as ways to avoid the law. Though, at least in theory, it will still be illegal and people doing it could at least in theory be caught and prosecuted for it.
Shutting down the main ones, while leaving crypto-based ones as a legally risky alternative will still greatly hamper and slow down these prediction markets' business in Minnesota.
Kalshi and Polymarket split the market almost 50/50. Kalshi has KYC and legally serves US markets and Polymarket doesn't and uses crypto for their US customers.
Its literally around half the market, not some fringe thing.
It's against hosting or advertising those markets. I think if they leave that out of the ad campaign they'll be fine.
No, it specifically says "provide supportive services."
Which would require a specific relationship with one of those markets.
If I use a VPN to access Google, does that mean I have a "special relationship" with Google?
I believe the point is if google was illegal where you live, it would be illegal if Google said "hey you can still reach us without the big man knowing by using our partners 'borgVPN' ". BorgVPN could be in trouble for the partnership, even if they aren't the actual banned service.
Sure, but that's not really explicitly laid out in the law.
Laws typically are not that explicitly laid out. There needs to be some flexibility and generality to them or they become worthless.
Right, and it's worded generically enough that it could be interpreted as applying to any VPN.
You could always use tor browser to access the sites.
You’re relying on Air Bud rules to get around that.
“Ain’t nothin in the rules that says ~~a dog can’t play basketball~~ a tor relay ain’t a VPN.”
SSH tunnels and SOCKS proxies also apply.
Yeah the same rules that the ruling class uses to get around paying taxes.
Yes but we don’t have MONEY
Don't need money if we flood it. Can't catch all the speeders.