Kentucky / Legal position gauge

Elevated risk

Editorial assessment from Kentucky-specific research—not legal approval. Licensed Kentucky counsel must review before any deployment decision.

Why this rating?

Kentucky defines gambling as staking or risking something of value upon a contest, game, scheme, or device “based upon an element of chance,” and playing or offering a gambling device is gambling by definition (KRS 528.010(6)). After 2023 H.B. 594, a permanently located electronic device that offers a “simulated gambling program” for direct or indirect consideration—including a sweepstakes entry—is a gambling device if it may deliver money or property through any element of chance, regardless of whether the result is also partially or predominantly based on skill (§ 528.010(7)(a)2). Skill-paying cash terminals are independently covered (§ 528.010(7)(a)4). Coin-operated amusement machines may not pay cash (§ 528.010(4)). In Welch v. Commonwealth, Kentucky’s then-highest court held that a café machine that disclosed the exact result of the current play before the nickel dropped was still a gambling device, because chance lived in the lure of the next play. The Attorney General applied Welch in September 2024 to modern “risk-free play” terminals and wrote that there is “no safe harbor” for that format (AG Advisory). The Court of Appeals unanimously upheld H.B. 594 in 2026 (ARKK). Setting up and operating a gambling device is a Class D felony (KRS 528.020); civil penalties reach $25,000 per device (KRS 528.100). We did not identify a reported appellate decision testing mandatory pre-reveal with exact monetary disclosure, genuine accept/decline, and no charge on decline. That timing distinction, plus the absence of any case against a full-pool reveal with mandatory pre-reveal, drops the rating from high risk to elevated. Welch disclosed the current play before the nickel dropped, but chance was the lure of the next play—not a full-pool reveal. H.B. 594, the AG advisory, and device-felony exposure keep the rating out of the moderate band.

This gauge also weighs that we identified no charges and no decided case in Kentucky against a game that used a full-pool reveal together with mandatory pre-reveal. Banilla, Torch, and JD Prime used an optional viewer of the next assigned result after money was already on the machine. Café terminals paid first, then revealed. Those fact patterns are not this architecture and do not, by themselves, set the rating.

Scale: High risk → Elevated risk → Moderate risk → Unsettled → Moderately favorable → Favorable → Strong position. These are editorial categories, not probabilities of approval or findings of legality.

Source review date: . Has this exact model been tested? · Counsel checklist · Authorities

NCG GAMESKentucky position brief
Kentucky  /  Position brief

The dial already showed the prize.
Kentucky still called it gambling.

In 1918, Kentucky’s highest court held that a Lexington café gum machine was a gambling device even though a dial told the player, before the nickel dropped, exactly what that play would return. Chance, the court said, lived in the hope that the next play would pay something for nothing. The Attorney General mapped that holding onto modern “risk-free play” terminals in 2024. House Bill 594 then defined electronic prize cabinets by any element of chance—skill does not save them—and the Court of Appeals upheld that statute in 2026. The NCG position is that those authorities never tested a genuine no-charge decline after exact disclosure. That is a factual distinction, not a statutory exemption.

Has this been tested? What remains for Kentucky counsel
Working position

This brief analyzes the proposed transaction architecture under current Kentucky law. It is not a finding of legality, Attorney General approval, Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation authorization, or permission to operate cash-prize devices. Authorized channels are the state lottery (Ky. Const. § 226; KRS Chapter 154A), licensed racing, historical horse racing, sports wagering, fantasy contests, and fixed-odds wagering (KRS Chapter 230; KRS 436.480), and licensed charitable gaming (KRS Chapter 238). Setting up and operating a gambling device is a Class D felony.

Kentucky legal starting point

Kentucky criminalizes advancing or profiting from gambling that is not authorized under Chapters 154A, 230, or 238, and it separately defines a broad class of gambling devices.

KRS 528.010(6)

An element of chance—not a predominance test

Gambling is “staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest, game, gaming scheme, or gaming device which is based upon an element of chance,” with an agreement that someone will receive something of value on a certain outcome. Playing or offering a gambling device is gambling. Before H.B. 594, operators often argued a dominant-factor / skill test. The 2023 amendments and the 2026 ARKK opinion confirm the General Assembly may define the test; the current statute uses an element of chance.

KRS 528.010(7)

Device law is independently severe

A gambling device includes slot-style machines that may deliver money through any element of chance; permanently located electronic simulated-gambling programs offered for consideration—including a sweepstakes entry—even if skill predominates; and terminals that require consideration and pay cash on skill-determined outcomes. Coin-operated amusement machines must contain “no material element of chance” and may not deliver cash. Pinball is capped at free replays.

KRS 528.020; Ky. Const. § 226

Unlawful unless a named exception applies

Section 226 forbids lotteries and gift enterprises except the state lottery and charitable lotteries the General Assembly may authorize. Chapter 528 does not apply to licensed pari-mutuel or sports wagering under Chapter 230 (KRS 436.480). Setting up and operating a gambling device is promoting gambling in the first degree—a Class D felony. Possession is a Class A misdemeanor. Civil penalties reach $25,000 per device.

Central timing question: KRS 528.010(6) asks whether the player is staking or risking value upon an outcome based upon an element of chance. The NCG position is that at Accept the accepted transaction’s monetary result is already fixed and disclosed—so the player is not risking value on an unresolved outcome. Welch rejected a single-play analysis and measured chance across the session. Kentucky has not held whether a genuine no-charge decline after exact disclosure escapes that session theory or the independent device definitions in § 528.010(7).

Safeguard 1

Exact cost and result are known before acceptance.

Before the player becomes financially committed to a transaction, the system discloses the exact transaction cost and exact monetary result. Accept processes only those disclosed terms.

Why this matters under Kentucky law

§ 528.010(6) requires staking or risking value upon an outcome based upon an element of chance. If the economic outcome is already fixed and disclosed before Accept, the strongest NCG argument is that the player is not risking value on an unresolved outcome—they are accepting a disclosed, predetermined transaction.

Contrary authority

Welch’s machine “plainly indicate[d] to the player before each play what he will receive for his nickel.” The court held that knowing the current result did not remove chance. The Attorney General’s September 3, 2024 advisory quotes Welch and concludes that games which “communicate to the player what the outcome of the next single game play will be” remain gambling devices. Counsel must explain why exact monetary disclosure plus a free decline is legally different from a dial that already showed the prize.

Implementation risk

Weakening factors: showing cost/result after partial payment, allowing acceptance before disclosure renders, charging to preview, or mismatch between displayed and settled amounts. Any of those would collapse the only factual distinction from Welch and the AG’s risk-free-play characterization.

Welch, 179 Ky. 125Pre-reveal is not a new Kentucky issue
Safeguard 2

Viewing the offer does not require payment.

The player may see the disclosed offer—including zero or negative-net outcomes—without paying for that transaction. Declining imposes no charge for that offer.

Why this is the only material distinction from Welch

In Welch, advancing the dial required dropping another nickel. A player who saw “gum” still had to pay to learn what the next indication would be. The court treated that paid advance as the chance element. NCG separates inspection from commitment: no consideration moves for a declined offer, so a known losing result need not be purchased to request the next offer. That sequence is the fact pattern Welch and the 2024 advisory did not have.

Contrary authority

Prosecutors and the Attorney General may still argue the player purchased access to a sequence of unknown offers by depositing funds, and that uncertainty about which offer appears next is the Welch “next play” chance. § 528.010(7)(a)2 treats consideration paid for access, computer time, or a sweepstakes entry as enough. Session-wide staking does not require that every inspected offer be paid.

AG Advisory (Sept. 3, 2024)No payment on decline
Safeguard 3

Monetary results and reel positions are predetermined.

Monetary outcomes are fixed before acceptance within a finite predetermined pool. Reels, symbols, and entertainment layers cannot modify the disclosed monetary result after acceptance.

Distinction from Kentucky authorities

Welch also involved a predetermined current result—the dial had already selected gum or a stated number of checks. Predetermination of the play being purchased was a fact in Welch, not a defense that won. NCG’s distinction is not predetermination alone—it is predetermination plus disclosure before financial commitment plus a free decline.

Device and simulated-gambling-program problem

§ 528.010(12) defines a simulated gambling program as any method intended for use with an electronic device that may, through any element of chance, deliver money or property or an entitlement to it. § 528.010(7)(a)2 applies that concept to permanently located business-establishment devices, including private clubs, offered for consideration. Casino-style reels on a cash cabinet will be framed as a simulated gambling program regardless of backend predetermination. Labels—“skill,” “amusement,” “sweepstakes,” “risk-free”—did not control after H.B. 594.

Historical horse racing is not a retail pathway

Licensed historical-horse-racing terminals are carved out of the device definition when authorized by the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation (§ 528.010(7)(b)2). That exemption exists because the Supreme Court first held the Encore/Exacta system was not pari-mutuel (Family Trust Foundation (2020)) and the General Assembly then rewrote the definition of pari-mutuel wagering in KRS 230.210. Instant-racing cabinets are lawful only inside that licensed, taxed, regulated channel—not as a model for unlicensed retail cash devices.

KRS 528.010(7), (12)Family Trust (2020)
Safeguard 4

The player may stop and redeem—including cents.

Eligible remaining credits may be redeemed without further play. Redemption includes fractional dollars; balances are not rounded down to trap value in the machine.

Effect on Kentucky analysis

Full redemption supports the argument that only accepted transactions consume value and that the player retains a genuine exit. It may mitigate “trapped balance” or forced-continued-play theories. Welch players redeemed trade checks for merchandise; redemption did not prevent conviction. H.B. 594’s amusement-machine rules forbid cash redemption entirely.

Limitation

Redemption does not cure an otherwise unlawful gambling transaction or an unlawful device. Devices and records used in violation of Chapter 528 are forfeited. Owners and operators face a civil penalty up to $25,000 per device, injunction, and attachment of devices and moneys inside them (KRS 528.100).

ILLUSTRATIVE CASH-OUT

$22.00 ticket+$0.67 cents→$0.00 remaining
KRS 528.100Exit rights ≠ legality
Safeguard 5

Software enforces non-bypassable rules.

Mandatory pre-reveal, accept/decline, no post-acceptance RNG, predetermined reels, and redemption rules are architecturally enforced—not merely published as disclaimers.

Why enforcement matters in Kentucky

Kentucky device cases turn on actual mechanics and how customers used the system—not marketing labels. Welch disregarded the “gum vending machine” characterization. H.B. 594 was enacted specifically to close “gray machine” / “skill game” labels. Software enforcement is how a no-charge-decline distinction can be proved if charges are brought under §§ 528.020–528.080 or civilly under § 528.100.

Implementation risks

Alternate clients, debug modes, stale-offer acceptance, pay-to-preview, or server paths that charge on inspection would collapse the distinction from Welch and match the AG’s risk-free-play description. Casino-style presentation without an enforced accept/decline sequence is the fact pattern Kentucky has already condemned. Setting up and operating the device is a Class D felony even before promotion-in-the-second-degree or possession counts are added.

KRS 528.020Engineering ≠ statutory permission
Required analysis

Has this exact model been tested in Kentucky?

We did not identify a reported appellate decision in Kentucky directly testing this complete transaction architecture—mandatory pre-reveal, exact monetary disclosure before financial commitment, genuine accept/decline with no charge on decline, no post-acceptance randomness, finite predetermined pool, predetermined reels, software-enforced safeguards, and cent-level redemption.

What Kentucky courts and agencies have addressed—and how those systems differ

  • Welch v. Commonwealth, 179 Ky. 125, 200 S.W. 371 (1918) — Then-highest court (Court of Appeals). Café gum-and-check slot; a dial “plainly indicate[d] to the player before each play what he will receive for his nickel.” Defense: no chance on the single play; the court may not look to future plays. Held: still a gambling device; chance is the lure that the next play will return something for nothing. Closely analogous on pre-disclosure of the current result and rejection of a single-play frame. Materially distinguishable because every play required a nickel; there was no accept/decline with zero cost on rejection of a disclosed result.
  • Office of the Attorney General, Advisory (Sept. 3, 2024; updating Aug. 9, 2024) — Applied Welch to electronic “Risk-Free Plays” that communicate the outcome of the next play before the player plays. Concluded those games remain gambling devices and that “there is no safe harbor.” Directed county and Commonwealth’s attorneys that H.B. 594 is enforceable. Executive guidance, not a judicial holding. Closely analogous on modern electronic pre-reveal. Not a test of mandatory no-charge decline after exact monetary disclosure.
  • Kentucky Downs, LLC v. ARKK Properties, LLC / ARKK Properties, LLC v. Coleman, Nos. 2023-CA-1150-MR & 2024-CA-0875-MR (Ky. App. Feb. 27, 2026; ordered published Apr. 10, 2026) — Unanimously affirmed Franklin Circuit summary judgment upholding H.B. 594 against due-process, equal-protection, and free-speech challenges. Recited the legislature’s power to abandon a dominant-factor test and to classify skill-paying devices as gambling devices. Cited Kentucky Jockey Club and Stars Interactive. Not applicable as a test of NCG pre-reveal mechanics; binding on the constitutionality of the current device definitions unless the Supreme Court later holds otherwise.
  • Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky, Inc. v. Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, 423 S.W.3d 725 (Ky. 2014), and 620 S.W.3d 595 (Ky. 2020) — 2014: Commission may regulate historical horse racing if the wagering is truly pari-mutuel; remanded for a factual record. 2020: the Encore/Exacta system was not pari-mutuel because patrons were not wagering among themselves on the same discrete event and associations seeded the pool. The General Assembly then enacted 2021 S.B. 120, rewriting “pari-mutuel wagering” in KRS 230.210 to include previously run races and pooled wagers across races. Not applicable to NCG architecture. Relevant to show that slot-like cabinets became lawful in Kentucky only through a licensed racing statute—not a retail loophole.
  • Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club, 238 Ky. 739, 38 S.W.2d 987 (1931) — The whole subject of betting and gaming is within the legislature’s power to prohibit, regulate, or classify. Not applicable to NCG mechanics; confirms H.B. 594 sits inside a long police-power tradition.
  • Commonwealth v. Stars Interactive Holdings (IOM) Ltd., 617 S.W.3d 792 (Ky. 2020) — Online poker / PokerStars; treated unregulated gambling as a public harm and supported civil recovery theories. Not applicable as a pre-reveal holding; cited in ARKK for the harm of unregulated devices.
  • Allen v. Commonwealth, 178 Ky. 250, 198 S.W. 896 (1917) — Gum-and-check machine in which the chance of extra checks occurred on the same play. Partially analogous on device-as-gambling; Welch distinguished it as a single-play hazard case. Not a pre-reveal architecture.
  • Ky. Const. § 226; KRS 528.010(8) — Lotteries and gift enterprises are forbidden except the state lottery and authorized charitable lotteries. The statutory lottery definition is payment for chances, a chance-based designation of winners, and something of value to holders of winning chances. Partially analogous if prosecutors characterize a finite prize pool as a lottery or gift enterprise. Not a judicial test of NCG architecture.

Enforcement and regulatory activity (not judicial approval)

H.B. 594 took effect June 29, 2023. Franklin Circuit upheld it on June 28, 2024; the Court of Appeals affirmed on February 27, 2026 and published the opinion on April 10, 2026. The Attorney General’s September 2024 advisory told local prosecutors they may investigate and prosecute gray machines and risk-free-play variants, and offered litigation support. In June 2026 the Attorney General filed a civil complaint against an online “sweepstakes casino” operator (VGW), invoking the simulated-gambling-program and consideration language of § 528.010. We did not identify an Attorney General opinion approving mandatory pre-reveal, accept/decline, cash-redemption terminals. Absence of a decision testing this complete architecture is not a judicial determination of legality.

Critical distinction

“No reported Kentucky decision directly testing this architecture” is materially different from “A Kentucky court has ruled this architecture legal.” Neither statement has been found true here. Welch is the closest high-court analogue—and it is adverse on pre-disclosure of the current result. The 2024 advisory is the closest executive analogue—and it is adverse on electronic pre-reveal.

No direct Kentucky appellate precedent identified
Strongest contrary arguments

What Kentucky prosecutors and the Attorney General could argue.

1. Welch already rejected the pre-reveal defense

Kentucky’s then-highest court held that a machine which told the player the current result before payment was still a gambling device. Defense counsel expressly asked the court to confine the analysis to the single play. The court refused. Trial prosecutors will quote the “something for nothing” and “next play” sentences.

2. The Attorney General has already applied Welch to electronic pre-reveal

The September 3, 2024 advisory is not a holding, but it is the Commonwealth’s litigating position: risk-free-play machines that disclose the next outcome have “no safe harbor.” Counsel should assume county attorneys will follow that guidance unless a court says otherwise.

3. Any element of chance; skill does not save the device

§ 528.010(6) and (7)(a)2 do not require chance to predominate. H.B. 594 was written to overrule skill-game arguments. ARKK held the General Assembly may abandon a dominant-factor test. A “no chance game” label can be turned against the operator under the session theory of Welch.

4. Independent device prongs, including sweepstakes entries

Even if a single Accept is characterized as a disclosed sale, § 528.010(7)(a)1–4 can still classify a permanently located cash cabinet as a gambling device. Paragraph (a)2 expressly lists consideration paid for a sweepstakes entry. Paragraph (a)4 covers skill-determined cash payoffs. Coin-operated amusement cannot pay cash.

5. Felony promotion, per-device civil penalties, and forfeiture

Setting up and operating a gambling device is a Class D felony (§ 528.020). Promoting gambling in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor (§ 528.030). Possession is a Class A misdemeanor (§ 528.080). Permitting gambling on controlled premises is a Class B misdemeanor (§ 528.070). H.B. 594 added a civil penalty up to $25,000 per device plus injunction and attachment (§ 528.100).

6. Constitutional lottery / gift-enterprise overlay

Section 226(3) forbids lotteries and gift enterprises except the state lottery and authorized charitable schemes. If a finite prize pool is framed as payment for chances designated by a chance method, prosecutors may add a constitutional and § 528.010(8) theory that no private operator can legislate around.

7. Session-wide staking and credit balances

Money inserted upfront creates a continuing credit balance. Each request for the next unknown offer may be characterized as the Welch second nickel—the structure the court said was designed “to allure the player into continuing to play.”

8. Current enforcement posture and HHR politics

Gray-machine litigation, the published ARKK affirmance, the risk-free-play advisory, and the 2026 sweepstakes-casino complaint show an Attorney General and racing stakeholders who treat unlicensed electronic prize cabinets as the problem H.B. 594 was enacted to stop. Presentation that resembles slots or HHR terminals will invite the same investigative path even if backend logic differs.

NCG factual responses and residual risk

Responses: at acceptance the monetary result is fixed and known; declines cost nothing, unlike Welch’s mandatory nickel; no post-acceptance RNG; the 2024 advisory is not a holding and described pay-to-continue risk-free plays; amusement and skill-contest exclusions are not the NCG theory—the timing of § 528.010(6) “outcome” and the absence of payment on decline are. Residual risk: binding Welch authority on pre-disclosure, an any-element-of-chance and sweepstakes-inclusive device statute, felony promotion, $25,000-per-device civil exposure, a published 2026 constitutionality win for H.B. 594, and an Attorney General who has already said there is no safe harbor for electronic pre-reveal remain material pending Kentucky counsel review. The free-decline distinction is supportable; it is not settled, and it is the thinnest available distinction from adverse high-court precedent.

WelchAdverse authority must be addressed, not dismissed
Complete transaction analysis

Chronology: when is the player financially committed?

“The player accepts or declines a fully disclosed, predetermined transaction. No later random event alters the monetary result. The legal question is whether Kentucky treats that sequence as staking value upon a chance-based outcome under KRS 528.010(6)—or as something materially different from Welch’s pay-to-advance-the-dial machine and the Attorney General’s risk-free-play characterization.”

This is the position to test—not a Kentucky legal conclusion. Compare to Welch (dial shows the current prize; player still pays a nickel; chance measured by the next play) and the 2024 advisory (disclose the next outcome; still a gambling device).

  1. 1 / POOLFinite pool predetermined
  2. 2 / REQUESTPlayer requests next offer
  3. 3 / REVEALExact result disclosed
  4. 4 / TERMSCost and result both known
  5. 5 / CHOICEAccept or decline
  6. 6 / SETTLENo post-accept RNG
  7. 7 / EXITRedeem remaining cents
Authorities

Primary Kentucky sources.

Verified . Binding precedent and current statutes distinguished from Attorney General guidance and enforcement filings.

  1. [1]
    Kentucky statute · definitions (current)

    KRS 528.010 ↗

    Gambling (paragraph 6: element of chance; offering a gambling device is gambling); gambling device (paragraph 7, including simulated gambling programs and skill-paying cash terminals); coin-operated amusement (paragraph 4: no material chance, no cash); lottery and gift enterprise (paragraph 8); simulated gambling program (paragraph 12); something of value (paragraph 15). Text includes enactments through the 2025 Regular Session and 2026 Ky. Acts ch. 184 (effective July 15, 2026), substituting the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation. Official LRC text. Older cases cite pre-2015 internal numbering.

  2. [2]
    Kentucky Constitution · binding

    Ky. Const. § 226 ↗

    State lottery and charitable lotteries/gift enterprises may be authorized; otherwise “lotteries and gift enterprises are forbidden, and no privileges shall be granted for such purposes, and none shall be exercised, and no schemes for similar purposes shall be allowed.” Text as ratified November 3, 1992. Official LRC constitution text.

  3. [3]
    Kentucky high court · binding on pre-reveal chance

    Welch v. Commonwealth, 179 Ky. 125 ↗

    200 S.W. 371 (Ky. 1918). Gum-and-check slot that disclosed the current result on a dial before the nickel dropped held a gambling device; chance measured by the lure of the next play. Then-Court of Appeals was Kentucky’s court of last resort. Compare Allen v. Commonwealth, 178 Ky. 250, 198 S.W. 896 (1917).

  4. [4]
    Attorney General · advisory / not a holding

    Ky. Att’y Gen. Advisory (Sept. 3, 2024) ↗

    Updates the August 9, 2024 gray-machine advisory. Applies Welch to electronic “Risk-Free Plays” that disclose the next outcome before play; states there is “no safe harbor.” Directs local prosecutors that H.B. 594 is enforceable. Not binding precedent.

  5. [5]
    Kentucky Court of Appeals · published 2026

    ARKK Properties v. Coleman, 2024-CA-0875-MR ↗

    Also captioned Kentucky Downs, LLC v. ARKK Properties, LLC, 2023-CA-1150-MR. Rendered February 27, 2026; ordered published April 10, 2026. Unanimously affirmed H.B. 594’s constitutionality. Recites the legislature’s power to replace a dominant-factor test. Official AG-hosted opinion PDF.

  6. [6]
    Kentucky statute · first-degree promotion

    KRS 528.020 ↗

    Promoting gambling in the first degree includes knowingly advancing or profiting from unlawful gambling activity by setting up and operating a gambling device. Class D felony. Official LRC text.

  7. [7]
    Kentucky statute · second-degree promotion

    KRS 528.030 ↗

    Knowingly advancing or profiting from unlawful gambling activity. Class A misdemeanor. Official LRC text.

  8. [8]
    Kentucky statute · forfeiture and civil penalty

    KRS 528.100 ↗

    Forfeiture of devices and records; civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per device (added by 2023 Ky. Acts ch. 4); Attorney General, Commonwealth’s attorney, or county attorney may seek injunction, attachment, and the penalty. Official LRC text.

  9. [9]
    Kentucky Supreme Court · historical horse racing

    Family Trust Foundation v. KHRC, 620 S.W.3d 595 ↗

    (Ky. 2020). Encore/Exacta historical-horse-racing system was not pari-mutuel. See also 423 S.W.3d 725 (Ky. 2014) (Commission may regulate HHR if truly pari-mutuel; official PDF at 2012-SC-000414-DG). 2021 S.B. 120 later redefined pari-mutuel wagering in KRS 230.210.

  10. [10]
    Kentucky statute · authorized racing / sports exemption

    KRS 436.480 ↗

    Chapter 528 does not apply to pari-mutuel or sports wagering authorized under KRS Chapter 230. See also KRS 230.210 (current definition of pari-mutuel wagering, including previously run races).

  11. [11]
    Kentucky statute · device possession

    KRS 528.080 ↗

    Knowing manufacture, sale, transport, placement, or possession of a gambling device believed to be used in unlawful gambling activity. Class A misdemeanor. Official LRC text.

  12. [12]
    Kentucky Supreme Court · legislative power over gaming

    Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club, 238 Ky. 739 ↗

    38 S.W.2d 987 (1931). The whole subject of betting and gaming is within the legislature’s power to prohibit, regulate, or classify. Relied on in ARKK to sustain H.B. 594.

  13. [13]
    Kentucky Supreme Court · unregulated gambling as public harm

    Commonwealth v. Stars Interactive Holdings, 617 S.W.3d 792 ↗

    (Ky. 2020). Online poker / PokerStars civil action; treated unregulated gambling as a public harm. Cited in ARKK. Not a pre-reveal holding.

  14. [14]
    Kentucky statutes · authorized exceptions

    KRS Chapter 154A ↗

    State lottery. Charitable gaming is licensed under KRS Chapter 238 (jurisdiction now with the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation). These are the non-racing statutory channels; they do not authorize private retail cash-prize cabinets.

Disclaimer: This brief is research and issue-spotting for professional discussion—not legal advice, Attorney General approval, Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation authorization, lottery authorization, or permission to operate. No Kentucky Attorney General opinion specifically approving mandatory pre-reveal NCG architecture was identified; the 2024 advisory is adverse on electronic pre-reveal. ARKK addresses H.B. 594’s constitutionality, not this transaction model. Kentucky counsel should verify all citations, effective dates, local enforcement practices, any pending discretionary review of ARKK, compact and racing-exclusivity questions, and the actual deployed software before any compliance representation.