ban – Our Story Insight

More countries weigh teen social media ban, experts warn it’s ‘lazy’

admin — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:53:35 +0000

Gen Z girl looking at smartphone screen feeling upset scrolling on social media.

Mementojpeg | Moment | Getty Images

Governments around the world are making efforts to crack down on teen social media use amid mounting evidence of potential harms, but critics argue blanket bans are an ineffective quick fix.

Australia became the first country to enforce a sweeping social media ban for under-16s in December, requiring platforms like Meta’s Instagram, ByteDance’s TikTok, Alphabet’s YouTube, Elon Musk’s X, and Reddit to implement age verification measures or face penalties.

Several European countries are now looking to follow Australia’s lead, with the U.K., Spain, France, and Austria drafting their own proposals. Although a national ban in the U.S. looks unlikely, state-level legislation is underway.

It comes after Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and Threads, faced two separate defeats in trials related to child safety and social media harms in March.

A Santa Fe jury found Meta misled users about child safety on its apps. The next day, a Los Angeles jury ruled that Meta and YouTube designed platform features that contributed to a plaintiff’s mental health harms.

Meta’s stock drops almost 8% as 2 court defeats add to Zuckerberg’s recent woes

These developments are set to “unleash a lot more legislation,” Sonia Livingstone, social psychology professor and director of the London School of Economics’ Digital Futures for Children center, told CNBC.

However, Livingstone said a social media ban for teens is a slapdash solution from governments that have failed to properly police tech giants for years.

“I think the argument for a ban is an admission of failure that we cannot regulate companies, so we can only restrict children,” she said, explaining that the U.S. and Europe already have a lot of legislation in the books that isn’t being enforced.

“When are governments really going to enforce, raise the stakes on fines, ban the companies if necessary for not complying,” she added.

Enforce existing laws

Experts argue the sector has for too long escaped accountability and the rigid requirements faced by other industries.

“[Governments] should be implementing the law [and] big tech companies should be facing a slew of regulatory interventions that forbid a whole series of practices that they currently do,” Livingstone said.

She highlighted the U.K.’s Online Safety Act, which “requires safety by design” — this means features such as Snapchat’s “Quick Add” that invite teens to befriend others should be stopped, according to Livingstone.

Livingstone believes that a blanket ban wouldn’t even be under discussion if social media companies had undergone appropriate premarket testing to establish if their features are safe for their target audience.

“There are lots of areas where we have a well functioning market that requires testing to establish it meets the standards…[before products] can go into the market,” she said. “If we did that for AI and for social media, we would be in a whole different place and we’d not be having to talk about banning children from anything.”

Josh Golin, executive director at Boston-based non-profit Fairplay, told CNBC that he’d like to see “privacy and safety by design legislation rather than blanket bans” across the U.S.

This includes passing the Children and Teen Online Privacy Protection Act to put a stop to personal data-driven advertising towards children, so there’s “less financial incentive for social media companies to target and addict kids.”

Golin added that passing the Senate’s version of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is also key to ensuring platforms are held legally responsible for design features that can cause addiction or other harms.

He added that Meta has already successfully lobbied to stop KOSA even though it passed the Senate in 2024. But, if it continues to block legislation further, Golin thinks this could see further pressure “line up behind bans because addictive and unsafe is not OK.”

A ban is ‘lazy’ and ‘unfair’

A sweeping social media ban only punishes a generation of young people who have become increasingly dependent on online means of interaction, according to Livingstone. She said bans are a “lazy” solution from governments and an “unfair” outcome for young people.

“It’s the 15 years in which we don’t let our children go outside and meet their friends. It’s the 15 years in which we stopped funding parks and youth clubs for them to meet in,” she said.

“So a ban now is to say to ‘Children, we can’t make the regulation work. We can’t update it fast enough. We haven’t built you anything else to do, but that’s just tough. We’ve terrified your parents into feeling that there’s nothing they can do, and we’re going to take you away from the service where you hoped you would feel some sociability and entertainment.”

A ‘quiet revolution’: Why young people are swapping social media for lunch dates, vinyl records and brick phones

Dr. Victoria Nash, associate professor and senior policy fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, described social media bans as an “extreme” measure that alienates young people from the benefits these platforms provide.

“We know children and young people get their news online and through apps, so you cut that off,” she said. “My view would be that I don’t think this justifies a ban. To me, what this justifies is more responsible behavior by social platforms to cut down on their most harmful features.”

She said that bans could drive young people and children to less regulated corners of the internet, which don’t have the same protections.

Many Australian teens flouted the social media ban when it first came into force in December. A BBC report found that downloads of VPNs, which hide users’ locations to avoid country-specific restrictions, increased before the ban.

Additionally, downloads of some apps that weren’t yet affected such as Lemon8, Yope and Discord also surged in the days after the law came into effect, per the report.

“I think it [a ban] certainly gets rid of all the harmful aspects, but it gets rid of the good ones too and I’m just not yet sure if that’s proportionate,” Nash added.

Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

The post More countries weigh teen social media ban, experts warn it’s ‘lazy’ appeared first on Our Story Insight.

ESIC issues four year ban to Counter-Strike player Nifee

admin — Sat, 04 Apr 2026 11:42:27 +0000

The Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC) has handed down a four-year ban to Counter-Strike player Dmytro “Nifee” Tediashvili after concluding he took part in match manipulation and betting-related misconduct, according to a newly released sanction decision.

Investigators with ESIC determined that Tediashvili violated its integrity rules by engaging in conduct that compromised fair competition. The decision was based on influencing match outcomes and placing bets tied to those same contests, actions the commission treats as serious integrity breaches.

The Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC) has issued a four-year ban to CS2 player Dmytro “nifee” Tediashvili following a detailed investigation into match manipulation and betting-related corruption during an ESIC Member Event.

Findings confirmed deliberate in-game manipulation… pic.twitter.com/2EoXz5AX78

— ESIC (@ESIC_Official) April 1, 2026

Under the ruling, Tediashvili is barred for four years from any involvement in events connected to ESIC member organizations. That prohibition stretches across all roles, meaning he cannot compete, coach, manage, or take part in any capacity within tournaments operating under ESIC oversight.

Officials said their conclusions rely on evidence gathered during the investigation, though the announcement stops short of naming specific matches. The decision fits into a wider push by ESIC to clamp down on corruption, particularly as betting activity becomes more intertwined with competitive gaming.

Counter-Strike Nifee ESIC sanction reflects crackdown on esports corruption

ESIC stated that the length of the ban matches the severity of the violations. Cases involving match-fixing and betting conflicts are treated as some of the most damaging offenses because they erode trust in results and the broader esports ecosystem.

The suspension takes effect immediately and will stay in place for the full term unless altered through formal procedures. Until then, Tediashvili remains excluded from all ESIC-governed competitions and affiliated organizations.

This comes as ESIC recently took action against multiple players and teams, including a high-profile sanction involving the ATOX Esports CS2 roster, which was also banned following a match-fixing investigation.

At the same time, the industry is facing growing scrutiny around gambling-related issues beyond match-fixing. Valve is currently pushing back against legal claims that loot boxes in games like Counter-Strike violate gambling laws.

ESIC continues to position itself as a central enforcement body, working alongside tournament organizers, teams, and betting operators to detect suspicious activity and prevent corruption before it spreads.

In its announcement, the commission reiterated that strong penalties are meant to discourage others from similar conduct. It also noted that maintaining competitive integrity is essential.

No public response from Tediashvili was included in the ruling.

Featured image: Counter-Strike via Steam / Screenshot via incircleesports on Instagram

The post ESIC issues four year ban to Counter-Strike player Nifee appeared first on Our Story Insight.

CFTC lawsuit targets states over prediction markets ban

admin — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 09:39:31 +0000

Federal regulators have taken Arizona, Illinois, and Connecticut to court, opening a new front in the fight over so-called event contracts and who gets to regulate them. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, joined by the United States, filed lawsuits in federal district courts seeking to stop those states from enforcing laws that would block these products.

Federal officials argue event contracts fall under their authority when they trade on registered exchanges. State regulators see something else entirely, calling them unlicensed gambling.

The cases seen by ReadWrite stem in part from recent enforcement moves. In Illinois, regulators sent cease-and-desist letters to firms including Kalshi and Robinhood, arguing their sports-related event contracts amount to unlawful wagering without proper state licenses. Connecticut officials made similar claims, saying companies were “conducting unlicensed online gambling” by offering these contracts to residents.

The @CFTC has clear and longstanding exclusive jurisdiction to regulate prediction markets. But recently, state regulators have tried to impose inconsistent and contrary obligations on CFTC-registered prediction markets. In response, the CFTC and @TheJusticeDept today filed three…

— Mike Selig (@ChairmanSelig) April 2, 2026

However, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig stated in a press release that the agency would “continue to safeguard its exclusive regulatory authority over these markets and defend market participants against overzealous state regulators.

“This is not the first time states have tried to impose inconsistent and contrary obligations on market participants, but Congress specifically rejected such a fragmented patchwork of state regulations because it resulted in poorer consumer protection and increased risk of fraud and manipulation,” he added.

CFTC and DOJ challenge states over prediction markets ban

The federal complaints lean heavily on the Commodity Exchange Act. According to the filings, the law “provides a comprehensive regulatory framework for the regulation of derivatives transactions in the United States” and gives the CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction” over products like futures, options, and swaps listed on regulated exchanges.

Officials argue that event contracts fit squarely within that framework when structured as derivatives. The filings describe them as instruments that “enable parties to trade on their predictions about whether a future event…will occur,” spanning areas like “economics, or elections, or climate, or sports.”

States are pushing back with a different interpretation. Illinois regulators, for example, said it is illegal to run platforms that allow users to “make a wager upon the result of any sport, game, contest, political nomination, appointment, or election…without an [Illinois Gaming Board]-issued license.” Connecticut authorities have taken a similar stance.

The lawsuits also draw on history, pointing out that futures trading was once treated as gambling in some jurisdictions before Congress stepped in to centralize oversight. Lawmakers ultimately handed the CFTC exclusive authority in 1974 to avoid what they warned could become “total chaos” from overlapping rules.

Recent developments have added urgency. The CFTC has been weighing guidance and potential rulemaking around sports-related prediction markets, while also attempting to have a more pragmatic approach in recent advisory discussions. At the same time, legal debates have expanded beyond these states, including outside support for prediction markets in filings tied to Nevada disputes.

A ruling against the federal government might limit the agency’s reach and reinforce state control over anything resembling sports betting. A decision in favor of the CFTC would strengthen a single national framework, and likely clear the way for wider expansion of event-based derivatives.

Featured image: Canva

The post CFTC lawsuit targets states over prediction markets ban appeared first on Our Story Insight.

US router ban could shake gambling industry

admin — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 17:19:33 +0000

A federal move announced Monday (March 23) targets new consumer-grade routers produced in foreign countries entering the US market, not the devices already in homes. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) added those routers to its Covered List, which blocks new models from receiving the equipment authorization required for import and sale. The agency says the change does not affect routers consumers already own or models that were previously approved, meaning existing devices can remain in use.

This update to the Covered List does not prohibit the import, sale, or use of any existing device models the FCC previously authorized.

The Federal Communications Commission

This follows a national security determination that such routers “pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the safety and security of United States persons.”

The change comes as gambling in the US has grown to an enormous scale. Legal gaming now functions almost like essential infrastructure, spread across nearly every state.

The US gambling market is measured in tens of billions

Start with the money. Commercial gaming alone brought in $78.7 billion in 2025, a record according to the American Gaming Association. Tribal gaming added another $43.9 billion in its 2025 fiscal year. The figures come from different reporting calendars, so they are not meant to be stacked as a precise combined total. Together, the figures point to a system generating well over $100 billion a year. This doesn’t even take into account the full ecosystem, such as state lotteries and other forms of gaming.

The revenue sits on top of a sprawling physical network. By the end of 2024, there were 492 commercial casinos spread across 27 states. Tribal operations added 500-plus more sites across 29 states, depending on how properties are counted. Round it out, and the country supports roughly 1,000 land-based gambling locations before factoring in sportsbooks inside arenas, racetracks, lottery retailers, and online-only platforms.

The workforce is just as substantial. Federal labor data shows about 252,900 people employed in casino hotels and another 128,700 in other gambling-related industries. Together, that puts the sector at roughly 381,600 payroll jobs across those categories. A narrower occupational slice still counts more than 150,000 gambling services workers, including tens of thousands of dealers and supervisors. Even in a digital era, the system depends heavily on human operators.

The online side has also surged into national-scale territory. Americans wagered $166.94 billion on sports in 2025, producing $16.96 billion in revenue. Early 2026 figures from the American Gaming Association show the pace continuing, with $14.81 billion in handle in January alone and more than $1.6 billion in monthly sportsbook revenue. With another $1 billion from iGaming that month, it starts to resemble a constant financial system rather than a seasonal business.

Machines, endpoints, and surveillance everywhere

All of that activity requires a dense layer of hardware. There are likely between 600,000 and 1,000,000 electronic gaming devices in the country. The figure isn’t official, but it’s based on revenue data and typical slot machine performance. Slots alone generated billions per month at the start of 2026, which implies hundreds of thousands of active machines nationwide.

But slot cabinets are only the beginning. Modern casinos run on a mesh of systems: sportsbook kiosks, cashier terminals, loyalty card readers, player-tracking systems, hotel management terminals, and redemption machines. Behind the scenes, there are compliance servers, storage arrays, and networking gear tying everything together.

Today, the FCC took additional action to safeguard Americans and the communications networks we rely on.

The FCC added consumer routers produced in foreign countries to the agency’s Covered List.

This action follows a national security determination provided by Executive Branch… pic.twitter.com/s3OoEo5NOV

— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) March 23, 2026

Taken together, that likely adds up to a few million connected or monitored devices. In total, somewhere between one and three million devices are tied to regulated gambling operations. The figure reflects the size of the property base and the density of technology inside each location rather than a single published dataset.

Then there is surveillance, one of the least visible but most critical components. Casinos are among the most camera-heavy environments in the country, driven by fraud prevention, dispute resolution, cash handling, and regulatory compliance. Altogether, there are about 1,000 land-based gambling locations, not even counting sportsbooks, racetracks, lottery retailers, or online platforms. Either way, it’s far larger than what you’d see in typical retail or hospitality environments.

The software layer that keeps everything running

The hardware footprint is huge, and the software behind it is even bigger. Every legal wager flows through multiple systems at once. Operators rely on gaming management platforms to track slot and table activity, sportsbook engines to set and adjust odds, and wallet systems to move money in and out.

Surrounding that are layers of compliance and risk tools. Identity verification systems confirm who users are. Geolocation software ensures bets are placed within legal jurisdictions. Anti-money-laundering systems monitor transactions. Fraud detection tools flag suspicious behavior. On top of that, operators run loyalty programs, customer databases, and marketing systems designed to keep players engaged.

None of this can suddenly stop. The platforms must continuously process deposits, wagers, odds updates, event settlements, tax calculations, and payouts. The fact that iGaming revenue reached $10.74 billion in 2025 from just seven active states shows how central this software layer has become. It’s a full industry running in real time.

What the router ban does and does not change in terms of US gambling

In that context, the FCC’s move looks less like a direct impact on casinos and more like a warning about how sensitive the system has become. Because the rule applies to new device models that require FCC equipment authorization, any near-term effect would more likely show up at the edge, for home bettors, smaller operators, or peripheral deployments, than inside core casino networks.

Core casino networks, which use enterprise-grade systems and tight controls, seem less directly affected. But the general message is harder to ignore. US gambling now depends on a vast, interconnected technology base that spans from living-room Wi-Fi to highly regulated surveillance networks and real-time financial systems.

In simple terms, keeping gambling running in the US means supporting about 1,000 properties, hundreds of thousands of workers, and up to a million machines, millions of connected endpoints, and software capable of handling well over $150 billion a year in betting activity, alongside tens of billions more in other gaming revenue.

The router decision won’t disrupt things overnight, but it draws attention to how much the industry depends on infrastructure beyond the casino floor.

Featured image: Canva

The post US router ban could shake gambling industry appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Family offices could be hit in Trump ban on investors buying homes

admin — Mon, 19 Jan 2026 08:30:14 +0000

Single-family homes in a residential neighborhood in Miramar, Florida, Oct. 27, 2022.

Joe Raedle | Getty Images News | Getty Images

A version of this article first appeared in CNBC’s Inside Wealth newsletter with Robert Frank, a weekly guide to the high-net-worth investor and consumer. Sign up to receive future editions, straight to your inbox.

Private investment firms of ultra-rich families could inadvertently get caught in the crosshairs of President Donald Trump’s proposed ban on “large institutional investors” buying more single-family homes. While Trump’s announcement took aim at Wall Street landlords, and particularly private equity giants like Blackstone, Haynes Boone partner Vicki Odette told Inside Wealth that family offices aren’t necessarily out of the woods.

Three-quarters of family offices in North America invest in real estate, with an average allocation of 18%, according to a survey issued by Campden Wealth and RBC Wealth Management last year. Residential properties made up just under a third of the average family office’s real estate holdings, per the same report.

The consequences of Trump’s proposal hinge on how it would define a large institutional investor, which has yet to be revealed. According to Odette, in recent years, Congress and government agencies have focused on the number of homes owned rather than the investor’s total assets or investment strategy.

A 2024 report by the Government Accountability Office about institutional investors focused on those who own more than 1,000 properties of four units or less. The threshold is even lower in the Stop Predatory Investing Act that was introduced in March, which names “disqualified single family property owners,” defined as taxpayers who directly or indirectly own 50 or more single-family residential rental properties.

“There’s a lot of rich families that would fall into that category inadvertently because they are real estate developers and made their money in real estate,” said Odette, a partner at Haynes Boone who advises family offices, funds and institutional investors.

Family offices generally prefer multifamily housing and commercial developments, she said. However, there are some family offices, especially in the South, that have meaningful portfolios of single-family homes in suburban or rural areas, she said.

Get Inside Wealth directly to your inbox

Michael Cole, managing partner of R360, an investment community for centimillionaires, said it is too early to tell if the ban will affect family offices. Muddying matters is the fact that family offices are structured in a wide variety of ways, he said.

“There is no legal entity called a family office. It’s not a corporation, it’s not an LLC, it’s not an FLP,” he said, referring to family-limited partnerships. “Those are organizations that are run by the concept of a single-family office, but a single-family office is not a legal structure.”

Arielle Frost, partner in Withers’ real estate practice, said family offices likely wouldn’t be affected immediately, as Wall Street landlords are the primary target. What is unclear, she said, is whether politicians and legislators would continue to target other types of investors.

“The first strike is probably the most important, because you need to get the support for it and the momentum behind it,” she said. “Then the question becomes will it peter out? ‘OK, we made our base happy, and now we move on to other things,’ or is this this truly something that the administration cares about and is going to continue to focus on?”

fakta malang
fakta maluku
fakta medan
fakta papua
fakta riau
fakta sumut
fatnanas
Forum Perkebunan
hakli bandung
hakli bekasi
hakli bengkulu
hakli bogor
hakli cilegon
hakli denpasar
hakli jakarta
hakli jambi
hakli jogja
hakli langsa
hakli sabang
hakli serang

The post Family offices could be hit in Trump ban on investors buying homes appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Who’ll next implement an Australia-style under-16s social media ban?

admin — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 12:53:58 +0000

Recently the Australian Senate passed a law to ban children under 16 from having social media accounts including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X.

Matt Cardy | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Australia’s social media ban for children under the age of 16 has grabbed global attention, and governments worldwide are considering implementing similar policies, with the U.K. seen as likely to be next.

The Australian government’s Online Safety Amendment Act came into effect on December 10, and included major social media platforms, including Reddit, X, Meta’s Instagram, Alphabet’s YouTube, Bytedance’s TikTok.

The platforms were forced to implement age verification methods to ensure under-16s are unable to create an account, and the companies can face fines up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($32 million) for not complying.

Although teenagers, tech giants, and experts have had mixed reactions since the ban came into force, governments globally are drafting bills to implement an Australia-style ban.

“This is a global issue, and governments everywhere are under pressure to respond,” Daisy Greenwell, co-founder of U.K.-based Smartphone Free Childhood, told CNBC. SFC is a grassroots campaign urging parents to delay giving children smartphones and social media access.

“We’re already seeing countries move in this direction, and as confidence builds and evidence accumulates, more will follow. No one thinks the status quo is working for children, parents, or society – and this is one of the clearest policy responses currently on the table,” Greenwell added.

Other countries that are considering an under-16s social media ban include the U.K., France, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Italy and Greece.

The U.S. is trailing behind on this front with a national ban being unlikely, however there is certainly state and local interest, according to Ravi Iyer, a managing director of the University of Southern California Marshall School’s Neely Center.

Iyer has worked closely with social psychologist Jonathon Haidt who wrote the renowned book The Anxious Generation, about the harmful impacts of social media and smartphones on children and teens.

“It’s really hard to predict Federal policy, but it is one of the few bipartisan issues left, so it certainly is possible,” Iyer said in emailed comments.

“I’m more confident at the state level and I believe we will see a few U.S. states enact such a policy in the next couple years.”

Lawmakers in California and Texas are looking at bringing in state-level bans in 2026.

But governments looking to implement such bans could face resistance from the tech giants.

Following Australia’s move, community-focused forum Reddit launched a lawsuit, arguing that the new law goes too far by restricting political discussion online. Facebook and Instagram owner Meta urged Canberra to reconsider the ban. And in a statement to users explaining how the restrictions work, Elon Musk’s X said: “It’s not our choice – it’s what the Australian law requires.”

U.K. set to vote on social media ban

Meanwhile, calls for a social media ban for under-16s in the U.K. have grown rapidly at the beginning of this year. The U.K.’s House of Lords is expected to vote this week to amend the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to include a social media ban for under-16s.

Greenwell’s SFC launched an email campaign this week, which saw more than 100,000 emails sent to local U.K. lawmakers. The SFC template email urged the government to set “reasonable, age-appropriate boundaries that protect children’s wellbeing.”

“We consistently see that the more time children spend on smartphones and social media, the worse their mental health outcomes tend to be. If these platforms are no longer available, the network effects collapse – and young people can reconnect with each other and with the real world,” Greenwell told CNBC.

This is the right age to give your child a smartphone, according to an NYU mental health researcher

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has even backed the idea saying “we need to better protect children from social media” and that he’s studying Australia’s ban.

“All options are on the table in relation to what further protections we can put in place – whether that’s under-16s on social media or an issue I am very concerned about, under fives and screen time,” Starmer said last week.

“Children are turning up age four at reception [the first year of school] having spent far too much time on screens,” he added.

Meanwhile, U.K. health secretary Wes Streeting asked The Anxious Generation author Haidt to address his officials at an event to push for stricter limits on young people.

France is also a strong contender as it debates two bills, one backed by French President Emmanuel Macron, to prevent social media access for under 15s, France24 reported last week. France’s public health watchdog ANSES outlined that social media’s negative effects are “numerous” and well documented.

USC’s Iyer said that if a teen ban becomes a global norm, it alleviates the pressure on young people to self-police.

“One of the primary goals of the law is to change the norm, such that teens don’t feel pressure to use social media because all their friends are doing so” Iyer said.

“It’s not really a realistic choice to abstain if you feel that all your friends are using a particular platform. If we can solve that problem and the majority of teens are off of social media, we’ll have done a lot of good,” he added.

The post Who’ll next implement an Australia-style under-16s social media ban? appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Premier League gambling shirt ban signals sponsorship shift

admin — Fri, 02 Jan 2026 19:10:01 +0000

In April 2023, the Premier League announced a voluntary agreement to remove gambling advertising from front-of-shirt sponsorships.

The decision was reached following “extensive consultation” with the UK government regarding its review of gambling legislation, which was prevalent in the recent budget announcement from the incumbent Labour government.

The new arrangement will apply from the start of the 2026/27 Premier League season, and while the change will be apparent, critics would say it’s nothing more than a case of moving the goalposts.

Although the logos of various mainstream (and not so well-known) gambling brands will be removed from the front of shirts, these companies will still be represented on shirt sleeves, on the back of the shirts, on training kits, on advertising boards around the pitch, and elsewhere within the stadium.

It appears to be a clever, calculated step, but one that comes with risk.

Premier League clubs made more than £1bn from their shirts alone last season, taking into account the value of their kit supplier deals, front-of-shirt sponsors and income from sleeve sponsors. Kit manufacturers have committed to providing nearly £492m across twenty agreements. pic.twitter.com/SQ4xVTrx21

— Łukasz Bączek (@Lu_Class_) August 22, 2025

The Premier League clubs have effectively self-policed, cognizant of pressures and developments at Westminster, with the UK government announcing a Gambling Act review white paper.

They have bought time to work around the new arrangements in tandem with gambling partners, but there will be a significant void to fill on the front of shirts.

The Premier League previously intimated that “a self-regulatory approach would provide a practical and flexible alternative to legislation or outright prohibition”.

In addition to the move instigated by the elite body in English soccer, a code of conduct was also agreed upon between the Premier League, Football Association (national governing body), English Football League (tiers 2-4), and Women’s Super League.

This is more of a safeguarding position, based on four general principles around gambling sponsorships.

There is no impending gambling sponsorship ban on the front of shirts for the lower leagues in England, and that situation is further compounded as SkyBet is the title sponsor of the EFL Championship, League One, and League Two.

Reduction in value of shirt sponsorships and overall revenues

In the current 2025/26 Premier League season, 11 of 20 clubs have a gambling brand as their front-of-shirt sponsor and key partner.

Those teams are Aston Villa, Bournemouth, Brentford, Crystal Palace, Everton, Fulham, Leicester, Nottingham Forest, Southampton, West Ham, and Wolves.

That is a lot of revenue to replace, with the collective value of these sponsorship deals exceeding £140 million ($189 million) per season, according to Football Media CEO, Dean Akijobe.

As reported by Hansard, the official report of all Parliamentary debates, West Ham United vice-Chairperson Karren Brady told a House of Lords debate last November that “the typical difference between gambling and non-gambling shirt sponsorships is around 40%.”

She added, “For some Premier League clubs, this decision (to ban front-of-shirt gambling ads) will mean a reduction of around 20% of their total commercial revenues.”

| Premier League clubs’ kit sponsors by category.

1. Gambling
2. Finance
3. Airline
4. Food & Beverage
— Technology
— Tourism
— No Sponsor (Chelsea)

[@Footy_Headlines] pic.twitter.com/U21Rj51sLz

— Goals Side (@goalsside) October 8, 2025

Following the voluntary ban announced in 2024, West Ham signed a front-of-shirt agreement with BoyleSports for the current 2025/26 season, while Nottingham Forest did the same with Ballys.

The relative change also comes after a number of Premier League clubs received a warning on their relationships with gambling brands that are unlicensed in the United Kingdom.

Bournemouth, Burnley, Fulham, Newcastle, and Wolves were reprimanded by the UK Gambling Commission on the risks of promoting unlicensed betting websites.

Many of these deals came about through TGP Europe, a wider ‘white label’ gambling operator and agent, which subsequently left the British market after the Gambling Commission hit them with a £3.3m ($4.43m) fine for multiple breaches of anti-money laundering rules.

The gambling companies affiliated with TGP remained active, but they had to ensure their domains were geo-blocked for British users.

In the example of Nottingham Forest, their Kaiyun.com front-of-shirt sponsor (last season) was not accessible in the UK.

The crux of the issue is that Premier League clubs cannot determine who the ultimate owners, or beneficiaries, of these Asian-facing, non-UK regulated gambling brands are.

The advice to the clubs from the Gambling Commission was stark:

“You will want to continue to satisfy yourself that your sponsorship and associated advertising arrangements are legal and do not present a reputational risk to your sport.

“We would advise that any organisation engaging in sponsorship from brands that do not hold a Commission licence manage their exposure to risk. This includes satisfying themselves as to the source of the funds for the arrangement.”

As it is, Burnley (96.com), Crystal Palace (Net88), Fulham (SBOTOP), Sunderland (W88), and Wolves (DeBet) are all carrying such partners for the final season of the current arrangement.

Betting company ‘supports’ Premier League ban

Intriguingly, a BoyleSports spokesperson told Insider Sport that “we support Premier League clubs’ self-imposed ban on front-of-shirt gambling sponsorship from the 2026/27 season.”

In a nod to the changing dynamic between clubs and gambling partners, they added:

“We’re already exploring how to evolve our presence within the stadium, across digital platforms and through direct fan engagement.

“Ultimately, visibility is important, but relevance and authenticity will carry more weight in the next era of football sponsorship, and we’re committed to staying ahead of that shift.”

As for what businesses will fill the void left on the front of shirts, you can expect some movement from the big players in telecommunications, airlines, fintech, and energy.

Another development to watch out for is the upturn in the exposure of cryptocurrency in the Premier League.

It will be a step into the unknown for some, while most others will embrace the open arms…and piles of cash.

Last season, 14 Premier League clubs had some form of crypto partner, which is an untapped revenue source and one that will have the authorities feeling anxious.

Just as gambling exposure is ‘reduced’, crypto will raise its head further.

Other examples in European soccer

In Spain, La Liga is one of the major European soccer leagues, but gambling sponsorship has been completely outlawed.

A Royal Decree in 2021 eradicated gambling sponsors from shirts and stadiums overall, vastly reducing brand visibility, but in the background, clubs, including Real Madrid, still have lucrative agreements with gambling firms that do not operate in Spain.

Another interesting observation is the route taken by soccer clubs in Belgium, who opted to work around the new rules and removal of gambling brands on the front of shirts.

Top clubs appeared to evade new arrangements by promoting sub-brands of gambling companies on their shirts.

Essentially, these were sports news app gateways to the main gambling website portals operated by major sponsors, but the authorities later launched further investigations and tightened their approach.

Next season brings changes to the Premier League and its clubs’ relationships with gambling brands.

To what extent the change is meaningful and how long the front of shirt ban lasts, remains to be seen, but a new era is on the way.

Image credit: PremierLeague/X

The post Premier League gambling shirt ban signals sponsorship shift appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Quentin Folliot receives 20-year tennis ban match-fixing

admin — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 15:21:57 +0000

A French tennis player, Quentin Folliot, has been hit with a 20-year suspension from the game. Folliot was found to be a “central figure” in a match-fixing scheme that has seen five others suspended as well.

The news comes from the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), which has been investigating match-fixing for quite some time. Folliot has also been hit with a $70,000 fine, as well as instructed to repay $44,000 in “corrupt payments.” The 26-year-old was found to be in breach of 27 different areas of the Tennis Anti-Corruption Program (TACP).

French tennis player Quentin Folliot has been suspended for 20 years following 27 breaches of the Tennis Anti-Corruption Program.https://t.co/MqgnJkzYzE pic.twitter.com/gcnePIV3I9

— International Tennis Integrity Agency (@itia_tennis) December 11, 2025

His career had seen him already ranked 488 in singles as of 2022. Effectively, his tennis career is now over as long as the ITIA is involved, as he won’t be able to participate until he’s 45.

Despite the suspension being for 20 years, it was taken into consideration the moment he was suspended, which was May 17, 2024. As such, he’ll be allowed to play on May 16, 2044. This is “subject to repayment of outstanding fines.”

His suspension prevents him from playing in the following tennis matches hosted by:

ATP
ITF
WTA
Tennis Australia
Fédération Française de Tennis
Wimbledon
USTA
“Any national association”

He is also prevented from “coaching at, or attending” any events that involve any ITIA member.

20-year tennis suspension over 27 infractions

During the hearing, Folliot denied 30 different charges relating to the fixing of 11 tennis matches between 2022 and 2024. The presiding and independent Anti-Corruption Hearing Officer (AHO), Amani Khalifa, saw that 27 charges were put through. Folliot was let off from three charges that involved inside information, failure to report a corrupt approach, and contriving the outcome of the match.

The full hearing is uploaded to the ITIA site and has AHO Khalifa is quoted as saying about Folliot’s actions:

“… a vector for a wider criminal syndicate, actively recruiting other players and attempting to embed corruption more deeply into the professional tours.”

Featured image: Quentin Folliot on X, ITIA

The post Quentin Folliot receives 20-year tennis ban match-fixing appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Rutherford County Library System (TN) Temporarily Shuts Down to Ban Books

admin — Fri, 07 Nov 2025 08:48:38 +0000

Kelly is a former librarian and a long-time blogger at STACKED. She’s the editor/author of (DON’T) CALL ME CRAZY: 33 VOICES START THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH and the editor/author of HERE WE ARE: FEMINISM FOR THE REAL WORLD. Her next book, BODY TALK, will publish in Fall 2020. Follow her on Instagram @heykellyjensen.

View All posts by Kelly Jensen

Rutherford County Library System (RCLS) in Tennessee have made several headlines during this wave of book censorship. They voted to ban all trans books for minors in the library earlier this year, and the board of the Lineburgh Public Library–one of their branches–voted to remove “transgenderism” books just weeks before the decision was made by the county’s board. Months after passing their anti-trans book policy, the RCLS decided to overturn it. That decision wasn’t out of a change of heart but rather, fear of litigation.

Rutherford County includes the city of Murfreesboro, which passed an anti-LGBTQ+ law in 2023 and later repealed, paying a steep fee following a lawsuit settlement. It is also home to Rutherford County Schools, which have been among the biggest book banners in the state. The ACLU and PEN America filed a lawsuit in the school district over their censorship of materials earlier this year.

Now, the RCLS board is shutting down several of its library branches to “meet new reporting requirements from the TN State Secretary’s Office.” The vaguely worded post offers little insight into what these reporting requirements are, and the post does not explain why two branches of the library system need to shut down for several days in order to meet them.

The answer is likely that this will be a mass book banning without public oversight.

Literary Activism

News you can use plus tips and tools for the fight against censorship and other bookish activism!

Tennessee has been actively updating their statewide library policies since the passage of their 2022 Age-Appropriate Materials Act. In 2024, the law was amended to add even more categories of books deemed illegal with the state. These include books containing nudity, sexual excitement, sexual conduct, or excess violence; it also includes books appealing to “prurient interests,” including LGBTQ+ material.

Both of these laws apply to public school libraries, but Tennessee has also updated their public library standards and the language within it mirrors that of the school-based law. This happened some time in 2023 and is likely related to a suite of legislation related to codifying biological sex as the only accepted identity in the state (another library system in Tennessee, Sumner County–also deeply involved in censorship of materials–recently failed to pass an anti-trans book policy for the fourth time. Their proposal references Act 2023, PC, TCA 4-21-102, and TCA 10-3-10 as justification; see page 9 of the .pdf). It’s also likely blatant over-application of the law.

The 2025 Tennessee Standards for Public Libraries in the Regional System states the following on page 25:

Collection Development Policy (includes a Materials Reconsideration policy)
Minimum Requirements

All materials are selected by the local public library in accordance with the individual public library’s full Collection Development Policy;
The public library’s Collection Development Policy is approved by the public library’s Board of Trustees (or equivalent governing body) at least annually;
All books selected for purchase by the individual public library, through the Regional Library System or otherwise, are reviewed by the public library’s director before purchase, with the library director then sharing a list or lists of newly purchased materials with the public library’s Board of Trustees (or equivalent governing body);
No funds received are used to purchase, nor will the library otherwise acquire, material that constitutes “child pornography,” is “pornographic for minors,” or is “obscene;”
Books and materials that contain sexual themes or content are reviewed by the public library independently for age-appropriateness and cataloged accordingly – even if this overrides the age appropriateness recommended by the publisher;
Request for Reconsideration of Materials: The library has a written, publicly accessible library materials challenge policy that (a) defines which parties may dispute or challenge the library’s age-appropriate designation on materials, with such definition, at a minimum, including a parent or guardian of a minor within the library district, (b) defines the process by which a materials challenge can be initiated, and (c) provides for the results of any such dispute or challenge to be disclosed in the public library’s official Board of Trustee minutes.

Starting in September of this year, all public libraries in the state began to receive letters from Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett. He emphasized that for libraries to receive their funding from the state, they needed to comply with all state and local laws.

The letter specifically cites Trump’s “Defending Women from Gender Ideology,” and states that all libraries needed to review their juvenile materials to ensure they are in compliance with Tennessee’s age-appropriateness law, all federal laws, and all federal executive orders (which are not legally binding and do not override the Constitution).

But why the urgency to shut down the library to review materials? It could be related to a second letter that the Secretary of State sent out in late October, demanding the removal of any books out of compliance of the law within 60 days. The RCLS board chair, the director of the RCLS, and the branch manager of the Linebaugh Public Library received this:

Like we saw happen similarly this summer in Florida, the Tennessee Secretary of State is attempting to wield power in order to drive libraries into compliance with standards that are not legally binding and that indeed are intended to led to mass bannings. Unlike in Florida, though, where schools complied out of fear, in Rutherford, at least, such demands to remove LGBTQ+ materials from the library aligns with the board’s long-term goals. It’s a convenient means of subverting their fears of litigation, which drove them to change their anti-trans book policy earlier this summer. If the directive is from the state, then they “have to” comply.

The Tennessee Secretary of State is granting permission slips to public library boards to ban away. It’s done under the guise of threatening them for noncompliance, but as we know, Rutherford and other systems in the state, including Sumner County, have been looking for the means by which to remove as many LGBTQ+ books from the library as possible.

Rutherford County Library System hired a new library director in June, and now, the director has been put in the position of responding to inquiries from residents wondering why the library is closing down two branches to “review” materials. The new director hails from York County Libraries in South Carolina, which itself has been subject to mass blanket book bans since October of last year.

There is an active anti-censorship group in Rutherford. They were among the first to indicate concerns over potential new changes to the library’s collection policy in late October, just before this closure was announced. Rutherford County Library Alliance will likely begin to organize a response and action in the coming days and will be the first to share updates about the library’s closures. Something library advocates can do in addition to following their lead is keep an eye on any and all LGBTQ+ (and specifically trans-related) books available in the RCLS system. Chances are better than good that titles which have been pulled from school districts statewide will be among the first targets in this potential purge. If you’re local and are able, head into the library this week to borrow any and all titles you think may be at risk of “disappearing” from shelves.

The post Rutherford County Library System (TN) Temporarily Shuts Down to Ban Books appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Australian government under fire for delays to gambling ads ban reform

admin — Mon, 06 Oct 2025 07:45:28 +0000

The Australian government is facing criticism for not tackling gambling ads fast enough, with fears of young people being exposed to harmful messaging.

Former Tabcorp and ASX chief Elmer Funke Kupper has an op-ed in the Australian Financial Review that calls for a crackdown on gambling ads in Australia, following what he describes as “an invasion” of gambling ads during the AFL Grand Final on September 27. It was the most-watched game of 2025, attracting more than four million viewers across the country.

Kupper claims that around 750,000 of them were under the age of 20, exposing young people to a high proportion of gambling ads. This has renewed calls for the Australian government to speed up progress on a gambling ads ban.

“I was surprised to be confronted with several sports betting ads in the thirty minutes before the centre bounce,” Kupper wrote. “I thought that the AFL and the government had dealt with this, and banned gambling advertising close to the games.

“The government and AFL Commission should reconsider their stance. Implementing stricter gambling advertising controls should be one of the simplest acts of leadership. Let’s not have gambling ads at next year’s AFL Grand Final”.

Gambling ads in Australia

The conversation around gambling ads in Australia has been ongoing for several years now. The government was slammed back in February 2025 when it made a perceived U-turn on the topic, following on from a delay to potential reform at the end of 2024. In the summer, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that an outright ban on gambling advertising would be difficult to enforce.

Critics like Kupper speculate that the Australian government is reticent to give up the hundreds of millions in ad revenue that come from gambling ads. Gambling companies account for an estimated $180 million a year into TV advertising, or around six per cent of total free-to-air revenue.

However, proponents of an outright ban continue to argue that this is a matter of public health. Indeed, Australia wouldn’t be the only country to pursue such a measure, with the UK recently passing gambling ad reform and Japan cracking down casino ads.

Featured image: Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

The post Australian government under fire for delays to gambling ads ban reform appeared first on Our Story Insight.