andrewtottenham

States have different legal tests for something to be considered gambling. Usually, we it needs three legs of a stool - 1) you pay a consideration (something of value, money, an item of some sort), for 2) a chance two win a prize (something of value), 3) on an event whose outcome is based on chance. The extent to which it is chance (random) varies from state to state. Some consider it must be wholly random, others mainly random and others partially random. It may be that some states consider winning more time as being "valuable" and the person is clearly paying for the opportunity to win "value" on a random event and therefore it would be considered gambling - that is what they appear to be arguing. If it is gambling it is either illegal or it is regulated and therefore the operator of the game would need a license in the states where it is legal. Weird world, I know.