1 Important first step for DFS regulation 2 Gray’s argument for the DFS bill 3 What the committee members said 4 Only one true voice of DFS dissent 5 The Indian tribes are not on board 6 Other items of note from the ‘bill analysis’ became the to pass a daily fantasy sports out of a committee hearing, after a vote on Wednesday afternoon. The bill sponsored by Assemblymember Adam Gray — AB 1437 — passed through the Governmental Organization Committee nearly unanimously. Assemblymember Marc Levine, who has been an outspoken critic of the DFS industry, was the only “no” vote. While DFS bills have been introduced in a variety of states around the country, California was the first one to move a piece of legislation forward. The bill still faces a number of steps to become law. It still will not be considered by the full Assembly; it must first also pass through the Appropriations Committee. The tone of the committee members was that they were in favor of moving the bill forward, while acknowledging that it is not a finished product, and needs more work down the road.

Regardless, it was a victory for those who want DFS to continue to be legal in the state moving forward, and regulated in the future. Fantasy Sports Trade Association Chairman Peter Schoenke appeared briefly in front of the committee, saying the organization was officially “neutral” on the bill. Gray, the committee chairman, left his chair to advocate for the bill, while assemblymembers would later offer their takes — and largely their support — for the bill. Gray stressed to the committee that the daily fantasy sports industry — as it stands now — is unregulated, and that not advancing legislation would simply keep the status quo. In that status quo, Californians are playing and will continue to play DFS, whether the legislature acts or not. Gray said his bill would “ensure consumers are playing on websites that provide comprehensive consumer protections” in his opening comments. That argument is likely why the bill was moved along, to be worked on at a later date.

He also noted that he was offering amendments on the bill — which can be seen in a bill analysis here — that included provisions for:armchair for sale suffolk Almost every member wanted the bill to progress to the next step, but nearly all had some sort of concerns they wanted to see addressed at some point:ikea poang chair cover Levine was the only member to speak out against the bill. computer chair for sale olxFor several months, Levine has been an opponent of the DFS industry, although he would still like to see the industry regulated as an endgame. bean bag chairs madison wi

He earlier asked Attorney General Kamala Harris to offer a legal opinion . Levine said he believes that the state constitution must be amended to make it possible to regulate DFS.wheelchair vans for sale in tennessee From his testimony: “This is gambling.  camping high chair edmontonThere is no doubt about it.  Let’s not fool ourselves. An entry fee is a wager. Cash prizes are gambling winnings. DFS companies are bookies. Playing these games is sports betting.” Levine has not succeeded in swaying any of his fellow committee members to pull back on DFS regulation, so far. The status of his request for the opinion of the AG’s office is unknown. There are also questions about whether the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act  could be a potential problem for DFS regulation, an issue that was not addressed.

One possible major stumbling block for the bill could be tribal gaming interests in the state. On Tuesday, the California Nations Indian Gaming Association made a statement saying it did not want to see the DFS bill move forward before online poker. (Originally, the hearing was set to consider iPoker and sports betting , before it was pared down to DFS only.) From the CNIGA statement: “We realize there are two other bills dealing with sports betting (AB 1441) and daily fantasy sports (DFS) (AB 1437) sharing the agenda with the I-Poker bill, AB 167. Introduced by Representative Reginald Jones-Sawyer, AB 167 represents one of the last in a series of I-Poker bills, which, unlike AB 1441 and AB 1437, were thoroughly vetted, debated, altered, massaged, and continually passed over with the hope of a political miracle of consensus in the next year,” stated Chairman Steve Stallings. “The regulation of fantasy sports is well intended. However, the state needs to prove it can deal with one online game–I-Poker–before it takes on others.”

Online poker legislation has had difficulty gaining traction in part  because of tribal concerns in the state ; it’s unclear if opposition from the tribes could scuttle DFS regulation in the short term. The analysis of the bill posted on Tuesday, in addition to containing amendments to the legislation, had some other interesting items in it:We paid more than £2,000, but then the item was reduced in the saleOnly problem was, we’d paid full price for a sofa that took ages to arrive. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian We paid more than £2,000, but then the item was reduced in the sale I saw a case that Consumer Champions covered, whereby a retailer’s promise of eight weeks’ delivery turned into a 38-week wait, and thought that my situation might fall into the same category. In mid-October last year I ordered furniture worth around £6,000 from DFS for pre-Christmas delivery. Part of the order was delivered as promised, but the main sofa, which cost £2,298, did not turn up until early February.

By that time the furniture was reduced by more than £800 in a sale. I have sent at least 10 emails and made around eight or 10 calls, but DFS refuses to accept its mistake – and I had to accept the sofa after three months without proper compensation. I have approached my credit provider and the Furniture Ombudsman for compensation, and would like to put a claim for the full order or cancellation through my credit provider (even if I have to take them to court). I am ready for a long battle with DFS, but at the same time would like this to be highlighted so that the company is forced to give better service to its customers. We can understand your frustration, particularly when you see the price of furniture you have not received marked down for the benefit of other shoppers in the sale. As you consider that you received a poor service from DFS, you could, in theory, take your case to the county court, though it would expect you to have already exhausted an alternative dispute resolution route – in your case, the Furniture Ombudsman.

This scheme has frequently featured on these pages, as it often seems to side with the retailer. However, neither option was needed in the end. We got in touch with DFS, which has unpicked your problem and tells us it has all been resolved to your satisfaction. It said: “At DFS we take customer service extremely seriously, so we are very sorry to hear that MK hasn’t had a satisfactory experience. We can confirm that MK received part-delivery of his DFS order on 19 December 2015, as arranged, but unfortunately we were unable to deliver the sofa. When we received the sofa in our warehouse, our quality control team flagged a small issue, and as such we were not prepared to dispatch it as it didn’t meet our stringent quality standards. “We arranged for MK to receive courtesy loan furniture in December while he waited for his sofa. In the meantime, the model MK had ordered was reduced in our winter sale so, as a gesture of goodwill, we agreed to match the sale price. We also offered to give MK further financial compensation due to the inconvenience of the delay.