Mississippi / Legal position gauge

High risk

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

Why this rating?

Mississippi enacted a statute that names predetermined cash-prize electronics as the offense. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-33-8 (Laws 2013, ch. 410, HB 974) declares Internet sweepstakes cafés illegal gambling. A “simulated gambling program” is any method on an electronic video monitor that “directly or indirectly implements the predetermination of a cash or cash-equivalent prize, or otherwise connects the player with” that prize, and is not legal under the Gaming Control Act. Prize eligibility need not have “any relationship to the outcome or play of the program.” Consideration includes money collected for a product, service, Internet access, computer time, or a sweepstakes entry. The Court of Appeals treated predetermined café terminals as illegal slot machines and held that chance is measured from the player’s chair—“What the machine ‘knows’ does not affect the player’s gamble” (Moore v. Miss. Gaming Comm’n, quoting Six Electronic). The same operator’s later café produced racketeering and § 97-33-8 convictions, with the Attorney General prosecuting and the “lawful marketing” safe harbor rejected for poker and keno (Moore v. State). Independently, § 97-33-7 forbids possessing slot machines that deliver value in varying quantities; the Supreme Court applies a consideration / potential-for-reward / substantial-chance test and holds that mere possession is enough (Henson). Unlicensed gaming is separately unlawful under § 75-76-55. The Mississippi Gaming Commission’s June 2025 public notice states there are “no legal exceptions” for so-called sweepstakes casinos. No reported Mississippi decision has tested mandatory pre-reveal with exact monetary disclosure, genuine accept/decline, and no charge on decline. That missing fact pattern is why this is not a judicial holding that NCG is illegal. The statute’s predetermination text, published café holdings, device-seizure regime, and active MGC/AG enforcement keep the rating at high risk rather than elevated.

This gauge also weighs that we identified no charges and no decided case in Mississippi 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 GAMESMississippi position brief
Mississippi  /  Position brief

Mississippi named the method.
Predetermined cash on a screen.

In 2013 the Legislature wrote § 97-33-8 to “clarify” that Internet sweepstakes cafés are illegal gambling. A simulated gambling program is any method on an electronic video monitor that implements the predetermination of a cash prize—or otherwise connects the player to that prize—whether or not the prize relates to the program’s play. Mississippi courts already measure café chance from the customer’s chair and have affirmed criminal convictions under that statute. The NCG position is that those cases tested pay-then-reveal systems, not a transaction that discloses the exact monetary result before the player can commit funds.

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

This brief analyzes the proposed transaction architecture under current Mississippi law. It is not a finding of legality, Mississippi Gaming Commission approval, or authorization to operate cash-prize devices. Unlicensed gaming, possession of gambling devices, and § 97-33-8 café activity remain independently prohibited. Authorized channels include licensed dockside or river gaming, tribal compact play, the state lottery, and charitable bingo under § 97-33-51—not a retail cash-device pathway.

Mississippi legal starting point

Mississippi criminalizes unlicensed betting, device possession, and electronic monitors that implement predetermined cash prizes outside Gaming Control Act licenses.

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-33-8

Internet sweepstakes cafés are named illegal

The 2013 statute is intended “to clarify that the operation of ‘Internet sweepstakes cafes’ is an illegal gambling activity.” It is unlawful to possess, display, operate, or have a financial interest in an electronic video monitor offered for a simulated gambling program in return for direct or indirect consideration, if the participant may obtain a cash or cash-equivalent prize. The prize need not relate to the program’s outcome.

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-33-7

Slot machines and similar devices are independently banned

Possession, display, or operation of a slot machine or similar device is unlawful except antique machines, music machines, bona fide vending machines that deliver the same quantity each time, and pinball that returns only free plays. A machine that delivers anything of value in varying quantities is a gambling device. No property right exists in such devices; officers must seize and destroy them. A second conviction can reach the penitentiary.

Miss. Code Ann. §§ 97-33-1, 75-76-55

Unlawful unless licensed or carved out

§ 97-33-1 forbids promoting or playing games for money, and wagering on any event or contingency, except licensed cruise-vessel / river / shore-adjacent gaming in the counties that have voted it in. § 75-76-55 forbids exposing any gambling game—including a slot machine—without a state gaming license. Charitable bingo, the Alyce G. Clarke lottery, and tribal compact play occupy separate statutory tracks.

Central timing question: At the moment the player becomes financially committed, is the monetary result still being determined by chance? NCG’s position is that Accept occurs only after exact disclosure, so the player is not paying for an unresolved opportunity. Mississippi’s café statute, however, does not require the prize to be determined by the program’s play, and it defines the forbidden method as implementing predetermination. Courts have not held whether a free decline after exact disclosure takes a cash-prize video terminal outside § 97-33-8 or § 97-33-7.

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 Mississippi law

§ 97-33-1 and the Henson slot test assume the player is paying for an opportunity whose reward still depends, in substantial part, on chance. If the economic outcome is already fixed and disclosed before Accept, the strongest NCG argument is that the player is not staking value on an unresolved chance—they are accepting a disclosed, predetermined transfer.

Contrary authority

§ 97-33-8 does not require the prize to be determined by play. Moore (2020) customers could ask a clerk to reveal the predetermined result after buying food or phone minutes and were still convicted. Six Electronic treated a machine that displayed a predetermined game-piece result with slot animation as a slot machine because the user did not know the result in advance of paying. Prosecutors will argue that disclosing a result the system already assigned does not change the character of a cash-prize video monitor.

Implementation risk

Weakening factors: showing cost or result after partial payment, allowing acceptance before disclosure renders, or mismatch between displayed and settled amounts. Any of those would collapse the only factual distinction from Moore and Six Electronic.

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-33-8Timing of consideration is critical
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 timing of consideration matters

Moore (2011), Six Electronic, and Moore (2020) involved payment (phone cards, coins, food, or minutes) before the result was known to the customer. NCG separates inspection from commitment: no consideration moves for a declined offer. That is the factual distinction those opinions did not have.

Contrary authority

§ 97-33-8(3)(b) treats money collected for a related product, Internet access, computer time, or a sweepstakes entry as consideration. Moore (2011) disregarded a mail-in free path when customers were buying cards to play. A funded credit balance can be characterized as paying for access to a sequence of unknown offers. The marketing-promotion safe harbor in § 97-33-8(5)(b) was held unavailable for poker and keno programs in Moore (2020).

Moore (2011) ¶¶ 15–16No 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 Mississippi authorities

Predetermination was the operators’ defense in Moore (2011) and a stated fact in Moore (2020) (“those games implemented the predetermined outcome of the code”). It did not win. Six Electronic assumed the Lucky Shamrock merely displayed a result already printed on the card and still called the dispenser a slot machine. NCG’s distinction is not predetermination alone—it is predetermination plus disclosure before financial commitment plus a free decline.

The statute that names predetermination

§ 97-33-8(3)(a) defines a simulated gambling program as a method that “directly or indirectly implements the predetermination of a cash or cash-equivalent prize, or otherwise connects the player with the cash or cash-equivalent prize,” and that is not legal under the Gaming Control Act. Counsel must explain why a disclosed accept/decline sequence is not “implementing” or “connecting” the player to a predetermined cash prize on an electronic video monitor—defined as any device capable of displaying moving or still images.

Device and varying-value problem

§ 97-33-7 treats a machine that delivers anything of value in varying quantities as a gambling device. Trainer v. State applied that varying-quantities language to video cabinets that awarded credits. Different disclosed results across transactions are, on the State’s view, varying quantities. The vending-machine safe harbor requires the purchaser to receive “exactly the same quantity of merchandise on each operation.”

§ 97-33-8(3)(a)Trainer
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 Mississippi analysis

Full redemption supports the argument that only accepted transactions consume value and that the player retains a genuine exit. Café customers in both Moore decisions could redeem points for cash; redemption did not prevent a slot-machine holding or later criminal convictions.

Limitation

Redemption does not cure an otherwise unlawful gambling transaction. § 97-33-7(2) declares that no property right exists in non-exempt devices and commands seizure and destruction. § 97-33-17 authorizes seizure of money staked or betted and appliances used in gambling. The Gaming Commission’s June 2025 notice also points players to § 87-1-5 recovery of gambling losses.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASH-OUT

$22.00 ticket+$0.67 cents→$0.00 remaining
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-33-7(2)Exit 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 Mississippi

Mississippi café and device cases turn on actual mechanics and how customers used the system—not marketing labels. Moore (2011) disregarded unused phone time and a free-entry form. Moore (2020) disregarded advice-of-counsel and “sweepstakes” branding once poker and keno appeared on the terminals. Software enforcement is how the timing distinction can be proved if charges are brought under §§ 97-33-1, 97-33-7, 97-33-8, 75-76-55, or the Mississippi RICO Act used in Moore (2020).

Implementation risks

Alternate clients, debug modes, stale-offer acceptance, or server paths that charge on preview would collapse the distinction from the café cases. Casino-style presentation without the enforced accept/decline sequence is the fact pattern Mississippi has already condemned. A second § 97-33-7 conviction can be a penitentiary offense; § 97-33-8 is drafted as a misdemeanor with a fine up to $1,000 or imprisonment of not less than one year, or both.

Moore v. StateEngineering ≠ statutory permission
Required analysis

Has this exact model been tested in Mississippi?

We did not identify a reported appellate decision in Mississippi 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 Mississippi courts and agencies have addressed—and how those systems differ

  • Moore v. Miss. Gaming Comm’n, 64 So. 3d 537 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) — Published. Paradise Isle Internet Café sold phone cards bundled with sweepstakes points; terminals simulated slot games; winnings were claimed to be predetermined at card activation; a free mail-in path existed. Held: terminals were illegal slot machines under § 75-76-5(ff) / Henson; customers paid to play, not to call; chance existed because the buyer did not know whether the card was a winner. Equipment subject to confiscation and destruction under § 97-33-7(2); no property right. Partially analogous on predetermined electronic entries and player-perspective chance. Materially distinguishable because consideration occurred before the result was known and there was no accept/decline with zero cost on rejection of a disclosed result.
  • Moore v. State, 309 So. 3d 7 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) — Published. Junction Café sold food and prepaid minutes; receipts carried sweepstakes codes; customers could ask a clerk to reveal the prize or play slot/keno/poker simulations that implemented the code’s predetermined outcome. Convictions for racketeering and two counts of operating an illegal sweepstakes café under § 97-33-8 affirmed. Attorney General prosecuted with the local district attorney’s consent. Marketing-promotion safe harbor in § 97-33-8(5)(b) held unavailable because poker and keno are gambling games unless offered by a licensee. Partially analogous on predetermined codes and a clerk-reveal option after purchase. Materially distinguishable on payment-before-reveal and absence of a no-charge decline after exact disclosure. Not a test of NCG architecture.
  • Miss. Gaming Comm’n v. Six Elec. Video Gambling Devices, 792 So. 2d 321 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) — Lucky Shamrock dispensed a calling card plus a game piece; the machine read a barcode and simulated a slot display of the already-printed result; a clerk paid cash prizes. Held a slot machine under § 97-33-7 because, by chance unknown in advance to the user, it delivered value in varying quantities in addition to merchandise. “What the machine ‘knows’ does not affect the player’s gamble.” The machine—not the card—was the problem; over-the-counter cards might have been analyzed as a lottery under Treasured Arts. Partially analogous on predetermined results plus slot presentation. Materially distinguishable on coin-in-then-reveal mechanics.
  • Miss. Gaming Comm’n v. Henson, 800 So. 2d 110 (Miss. 2001) — Binding. Cherry Master video and Quarter Pusher machines. Three-part slot test: consideration, potential for reward, substantial chance. Potential for reward suffices; actual payoff need not be proved for seizure. Mere possession of an illegal device violates § 97-33-7 (Stevens; Clark). Skill-or-chance statutory language overrides older skill-only device cases. Not applicable as a pre-reveal holding; controlling on the device test and seizure.
  • Miss. Gaming Comm’n v. Treasured Arts, Inc., 699 So. 2d 936 (Miss. 1997) — Over-the-counter phone cards with attached scratch pieces held not a lottery where purchasers paid fair value for minutes and no additional consideration for the chance. Partially analogous on promotional consideration. Materially distinguishable: no electronic monitor, no café play, and later distinguished by Moore (2011) and Six Electronic when a machine supplied the “slot experience.”
  • Trainer v. State, 930 So. 2d 373 (Miss. 2006) — Video cabinets that awarded varying credits held gambling devices under § 97-33-7’s varying-quantities language. Not applicable to NCG pre-reveal mechanics; relevant to credit-meter presentation and destruction of devices.
  • Mississippi Gaming Commission, public notice (June 17, 2025) — Cease-and-desist letters to unlicensed online sports and casino operators; states there are “no legal exceptions” for online sports books or so-called sweepstakes casinos; cites §§ 97-33-1 et seq., 75-76-1 et seq., and RICO. Enforcement statement, not a judicial test of NCG architecture.
  • 2013 HB 974 / 2025 SB 2510 — HB 974 created § 97-33-8 (eff. July 1, 2013). SB 2510 (2025 Regular Session), which would have increased penalties around sweepstakes-casino activity and, as amended, addressed online sports betting, died in conference on March 31, 2025. Failure of a later bill is not a finding that current § 97-33-8 is inapplicable.

Enforcement and regulatory activity (not judicial approval)

MGC agents raided Paradise Isle (2007) and Junction Café (mid-2010s). The Attorney General’s office prosecuted Moore v. State under § 7-5-1 after the Lee County District Attorney declined because of the specialized nature of the charges. We did not identify an Attorney General opinion specifically approving mandatory pre-reveal, accept/decline, cash-redemption terminals. An AG opinion would not be binding precedent in any event. Absence of a decision testing this complete architecture is not a judicial determination of legality.

Critical distinction

“No reported Mississippi decision directly testing this architecture” is materially different from “A Mississippi court has ruled this architecture legal.” Neither statement has been found true here. § 97-33-8 and Moore (2011) are the closest analogues—and they are adverse on predetermined cash-prize electronics when customers pay first.

No direct Mississippi appellate precedent identified
Strongest contrary arguments

What Mississippi prosecutors and the Gaming Commission could argue.

1. § 97-33-8 names predetermination as the method

The simulated-gambling-program definition is a method that implements predetermination of a cash prize or connects the player to that prize on a video monitor. NCG’s finite predetermined pool and reel entertainment can be described in those exact words. The statute was enacted to close the café loophole, not to invite a redesigned version of it.

2. Prize need not relate to play

§ 97-33-8(2)(b) makes the play-to-prize relationship legally irrelevant. An argument that “the reels don’t determine the money” tracks the statute’s own “whether or not” clause. That is a poor defense if the monitor still makes the player eligible for cash.

3. Player-perspective chance after Six Electronic and Moore

Even if each accepted transaction’s result is fixed, prosecutors may argue chance exists from the player’s chair as to which offer appears next. Both café opinions used that perspective to reject a predetermination defense. Henson’s substantial-chance prong can be applied to offer-sequence uncertainty.

4. Device possession is a separate crime

§ 97-33-7 does not require a completed wager. Possession of a slot machine or similar device is unlawful; there is no property right; officers must seize and destroy. Henson and Stevens make potential for reward enough. A second conviction can be a penitentiary sentence. Labels (“amusement,” “sweepstakes,” “disclosed sale”) do not control.

5. Skill does not save a payoff machine

§ 75-76-5(ff) covers skill, chance, or both. Henson said the Gaming Control Act displaced older skill-only device cases. A “no chance because predetermined” label can be turned into either player-perspective chance or a skill-or-chance slot.

6. Safe harbor is narrow

§ 97-33-8(5) excepts children’s ticket games, a lawful marketing promotion for a specific product, and licensee promotions. Moore (2020) held poker and keno cannot be part of a “lawful” marketing sweepstakes. Cash-redeemable adult terminals with casino-style games will be argued outside every exception.

7. Unlicensed gaming, RICO, and current MGC posture

§ 75-76-55 forbids exposing a gambling game without a license. § 75-76-5(k) lists slot machines and carves § 97-33-8 activity out of the licensable-game definition—so café-style activity is a crime, not a license pathway. Moore (2020) added a Mississippi RICO count. The June 2025 MGC notice denies any sweepstakes-casino exception and promises criminal referrals. Licensed gaming is geographically limited to approved Gulf Coast and river counties plus tribal compact premises.

NCG factual responses and residual risk

Responses: at acceptance the monetary result is fixed and known; declines cost nothing; no post-acceptance RNG; Moore and Six Electronic involved payment-before-outcome mechanics; the café statute has not been applied to a mandatory pre-reveal accept/decline sequence. Residual risk: § 97-33-8’s predetermination text, published café and device holdings, seize-and-destroy rules, unlicensed-gaming and RICO exposure, and an aggressive MGC remain material pending Mississippi counsel review. The timing distinction is supportable; it is not settled, and the statutory language is uniquely hostile.

§ 97-33-8Adverse 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 Mississippi treats that sequence as a simulated gambling program under § 97-33-8 and a slot machine under § 97-33-7—or as something materially different from the pay-then-reveal cafés in the Moore decisions.”

This is the position to test—not a Mississippi legal conclusion. Compare to Moore (2011) (buy the card, then play a predetermined result) and Moore (2020) (buy food or minutes, then clerk-reveal or play a code that already held the prize).

  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 Mississippi sources.

Verified . Binding precedent and current statutes distinguished from agency notices and failed legislation.

  1. [1]
    Mississippi statute · sweepstakes cafés

    Miss. Code Ann. § 97-33-8 ↗

    Internet sweepstakes cafés declared illegal gambling (Laws 2013, ch. 410, HB 974, eff. July 1, 2013). Simulated gambling program = method that implements predetermination of a cash prize or connects the player to that prize. Consideration includes related products, Internet time, and sweepstakes entries. FindLaw compilation current through Jan. 1, 2025.

  2. [2]
    Mississippi statute · devices

    Miss. Code Ann. § 97-33-7 ↗

    Possession of slot machines and similar devices unlawful; varying-quantities machines are gambling devices; no property right; seize and destroy; first- and second-offense penalties; licensed cruise-vessel / river / shore exceptions.

  3. [3]
    Mississippi Court of Appeals · published

    Moore v. Miss. Gaming Comm’n, 64 So. 3d 537 ↗

    (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). Paradise Isle café terminals held illegal slot machines; consideration despite phone-card packaging; chance from the player’s perspective. Official citation; casetext reproduction of the reported opinion.

  4. [4]
    Mississippi Court of Appeals · published

    Six Elec. Video Gambling Devices, 792 So. 2d 321 ↗

    (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). Lucky Shamrock phone-card dispenser with predetermined game piece and slot animation held a slot machine. “What the machine ‘knows’ does not affect the player’s gamble.”

  5. [5]
    Mississippi Court of Appeals · published

    Moore v. State, 309 So. 3d 7 ↗

    (Miss. Ct. App. 2020). Racketeering and § 97-33-8 café convictions affirmed; Attorney General prosecution authorized; § 97-33-8(5)(b) safe harbor unavailable for poker and keno. Official Justia reproduction of the Court of Appeals opinion.

  6. [6]
    Mississippi Supreme Court · binding

    Miss. Gaming Comm’n v. Henson, 800 So. 2d 110 ↗

    (Miss. 2001). Slot-machine elements: consideration, potential for reward, substantial chance. Potential reward suffices for seizure; skill-or-chance statutory language applies; mere possession unlawful.

  7. [7]
    Mississippi statute · Gaming Control Act definitions

    Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-5 ↗

    “Game” / “gambling game” includes banking or percentage games and slot machines, but not charitable bingo/raffles under § 97-33-51 or the illegal café activities in § 97-33-8. “Slot machine” covers play by skill, chance, or both, upon payment of consideration, with a potential payoff of anything of value. Antique-coin exception cross-references § 27-27-12.

  8. [8]
    Mississippi statute · unlicensed gaming

    Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-55 ↗

    Unlawful, without a state gaming license, to deal, operate, conduct, or expose for play any gambling game, including a slot machine, race book, or sports pool, or to receive a share of money played.

  9. [9]
    Mississippi statute · betting

    Miss. Code Ann. § 97-33-1 ↗

    Promoting or playing games for money, and wagering on any event or contingency, prohibited except licensed cruise-vessel, shore-adjacent, and Mississippi River gaming in counties that have voted it in. Opens with “Except as otherwise provided in Section 97-33-8.”

  10. [10]
    Mississippi Supreme Court · binding

    Trainer v. State, 930 So. 2d 373 ↗

    (Miss. 2006). Video cabinets awarding varying credits held gambling devices under § 97-33-7. Relevant to credit-meter presentation and destruction; not a pre-reveal holding.

  11. [11]
    Mississippi Supreme Court · binding

    Treasured Arts, 699 So. 2d 936 ↗

    (Miss. 1997). Over-the-counter phone cards with scratch pieces at fair telephone value were not a lottery. Later distinguished when a machine supplied the slot experience.

  12. [12]
    Mississippi Gaming Commission · enforcement notice

    MGC public notice, June 17, 2025 ↗

    Cease-and-desist letters to unlicensed online sports and casino operators. States there are “no legal exceptions” for online sports books or so-called sweepstakes casinos. Agency enforcement, not a judicial holding.

  13. [13]
    Mississippi Constitution · historical

    Miss. Const. art. IV, § 98 (repealed 1992) ↗

    Former lottery ban repealed by Laws 1992, ch. 713, effective December 8, 1992. Criminal lottery statutes (§§ 97-33-31 to 97-33-47) and the Alyce G. Clarke Lottery Law (Title 27, ch. 115) remain. Official Secretary of State compilation.

  14. [14]
    Mississippi statute · lottery devices

    Miss. Code Ann. § 27-115-83 ↗

    Illegal lottery devices—including video lottery terminals—are gambling devices and contraband, subject to confiscation and destruction (Laws 2018EX1, SB 2001).

Disclaimer: This brief is research and issue-spotting for professional discussion—not legal advice, Mississippi Gaming Commission approval, tribal-compact authorization, or permission to operate. No Mississippi Attorney General opinion specifically addressing mandatory pre-reveal NCG architecture was identified. An AG opinion is not binding precedent. Failed 2025 legislation (SB 2510) did not repeal or amend § 97-33-8. Mississippi counsel should verify all citations, effective dates, local enforcement practices, compact and lottery exclusivity questions, and the actual deployed software before any compliance representation.