After securing entry into its second US state, and with a third firmly in sight, RubyPlay is sharpening its compliance strategy to balance speed with precision. Amanda Slonzon, VP of Compliance and Regulatory Strategy, explains how the company’s US Playbook is helping to turn regulation into a growth engine, from leveraging New Jersey as a benchmark, to preparing for Pennsylvania’s unique challenges, and building trust-based relationships with regulators and partners across the industry.

When people think about compliance in the US iGaming industry, they often imagine it as the handbrake that slows expansion and stifles innovation. For me, it is the opposite as compliance sits in the driver’s seat. It is not simply a support function but a product in itself that enables us to grow faster, enter new markets with confidence and strengthen our relationships across the industry.

The US online casino market is both highly promising and highly fragmented. Only seven states currently regulate iGaming and each has its own framework. Navigating this landscape requires a deep understanding of both the common threads between states and the subtle differences that can make or break a market entry.

This is why we have developed a US Playbook at RubyPlay, which is a detailed, in-house framework for understanding and applying state-by-state requirements in a way that is tailored to our products and infrastructure. With it, our compliance and regulatory specialists break down each regulation, interpret it in the context of our business, and share that knowledge across the company.

Market comparisons

New Jersey will always be the starting point for most operators and suppliers entering the US. It was the pioneer of state-level regulation and, in many ways, still sets the standard for others to follow. Meeting New Jersey’s requirements ensures a company is well-prepared for other states, many of which recognise its certifications. Delaware, for example, places direct reliance on New Jersey approvals, a pragmatic approach that can streamline entry for those already licensed in the Garden state. But even with these efficiencies, each state demands its own level of preparation and adaptation.

Regulators in the US take compliance very seriously and ensure that every technical aspect of a business meets their requirements. Unlike some EU markets, where providers may not need a B2B license, every US state requires B2B licensing through a thorough, state-specific process. While major shifts are rare, when they occur they can significantly impact the industry. Right now, sweepstakes is the most talked-about development, and with New Jersey’s Governor having recently signed the ban into law, we are seeing a wave of prohibition that will have a major impact across the industry. Our role is to remain attentive, follow changes daily, and ensure we stay as compliant as we intend to be.

Every state also has its own technical standards, licensing requirements, tax structures, and approaches to product approval. For example, Pennsylvania applies the highest tax rate on operators in the country yet remains one of the most attractive among operators. It also has a deeply ingrained gaming culture and a large, active player base. Entering a state like Pennsylvania, which is a key target for RubyPlay in 2026, is not just about passing compliance checks but more about understanding the regulator’s expectations, the market’s economic realities and the cultural context of its players.

Advertisement

Fostering close relationships

One of the most important aspects of operating in the US is the strength of relationships with key stakeholders across the entire ecosystem. I have always believed that a strong relationship with the regulator is just as critical as meeting their requirements on paper. We work to ensure that regulators see us as partners who bring solutions, not problems. We communicate openly and demonstrate that we take their rules as seriously as they do. The same process applies to how we work alongside our industry partners. From platform providers or operator customer, we approach every partnership as a collaborative effort to succeed together.

Culture plays a vital role in how we approach regulation. Compliance is considered a technical discipline, but ultimately it is powered by people who care about getting processes and frameworks robust. I am proud to lead a team that is collaborative and solution-oriented. One of my proudest moments recently came during a recruitment process where I was speaking with a candidate for a role within our compliance team. She told me she had been following RubyPlay closely and was so impressed by our company culture, the pride we take in our work and the way we treat our people, that she was willing to relocate to another country just to join the team. It is a real story that speaks to the environment we have built.

Regulation in the US is not going to advance overnight. The state-by-state approach will remain and evolve, and new product categories will emerge that challenge existing frameworks. My perspective is that the companies who thrive will be the ones who embrace this complexity, invest in understanding it deeply, and treat compliance as a strategic asset rather than an operational hurdle.

The US Playbook we have developed is our way of making that happen. It is an ever-evolving strategy that keeps us compliant, competitive and ready for whatever comes next.

The era of splashy sportsbook logos wrapped around student sections is fading fast, and for good reason. What looked like an easy revenue win after the expansion of legal sports betting now sits at the intersection of compliance complexities, reputational hazards, and evolving cultural expectations about how gambling interacts with college life. Universities are recalibrating their risk tolerance, athletic departments are revisiting sponsorship inventories, and operators are rethinking whether campus-facing marketing is worth the blowback. At Gambling Freedom Casino and News Portal, we’ve seen the conversation shift from “How big can this get?” to “How do we do this responsibly,or not at all?” The answer is not a simple yes or no; it’s a recognition that the future of campus gambling deals will be smaller, more carefully segmented, and anchored in integrity and harm minimization. That future rewards institutions and brands that can communicate clearly, document compliance rigorously, and operate with a “help-first, hype-later” mindset.

From a compliance standpoint, the baseline in 2025 is tighter than many casual observers realize. Industry marketing standards increasingly discourage promotions that could be perceived as targeting students, and the phraseology once common in acquisition campaigns is now off-limits or strongly discouraged. In parallel, more state regulators are scrutinizing college markets, especially player-specific proposition bets, on the grounds that they heighten the risk of harassment and integrity issues. The NCAA has spent the last few seasons pushing for stronger athlete protections and a more consistent compliance posture across jurisdictions. Put all of that together and the practical effect is clear: even if a category is technically legal in one state, the patchwork of rules, guidance, and best practices makes campus-facing deals a compliance headache and a reputational gamble. The safest route is to build partnerships that avoid student channels, exclude conversion-driven creative around college events, and lean into education, integrity, and alumni engagement where age gating and segmentation are both meaningful and auditable.

Reputational risk is the other half of the equation and it’s often underestimated until it isn’t. The optics of a sportsbook brand appearing inside a campus venue or in an email blast that lands in student inboxes can overshadow months of careful planning. In the digital age, a single misguided subject line or banner placement can live forever in screenshots, resurfacing whenever a university confronts unrelated controversies. For athletic departments, the blowback doesn’t just come from national media; local stakeholders, faculty governance, and alumni donors have strong opinions about how a school’s brand is used. The narrative can turn quickly: what a marketing team frames as “supporting athletics” can be framed by critics as “monetizing student attention with gambling.” Add the human dimension—students and athletes facing social media pressure tied to bets and the reputational calculus tilts further away from broad-based campus advertising. Once a school becomes the example cited in op-eds and parent forums, every future sponsorship meeting starts on defense, which is a tremendous tax on leadership attention and goodwill.

So where does that leave universities and sportsbooks that still want to collaborate responsibly? The first lane is alumni-only engagement that lives firmly outside student media. Think association newsletters sent to verified recipients, event activations tied to homecoming for over-21 alumni, and gated digital experiences where age verification and alumni status are both required. The operative phrase is segmentation with proof: CRM hygiene that suppresses any .edu domains associated with enrolled students, third-party age checks that withstand audit, and creative that emphasizes responsible play rather than acquisition gimmicks. It is equally important to leave campus-owned assets out of the plan entirely: no student newspaper, no student radio, no in-venue signage within sightlines dominated by under-21 attendees, and no .edu pages. Success here is measured by quiet compliance, not splashy vanity metrics. Campaign briefs should spell out what will not be done (no first-bet language, no odds boosts tied to school IP, no promo codes keyed to team names), and media buys should be geofenced and frequency-capped to avoid spillover impressions.

The second lane is integrity and data cooperation, which is fundamentally different from marketing. Rather than converting users, these partnerships focus on protecting competitions and people. Universities and operators can align around standardized reporting protocols for suspicious activity, training modules for staff and athletes that explain wagering rules and red flags, and secure data exchanges that support real-time anomaly detection. When structured correctly, integrity agreements do not place sportsbook logos on campus; they establish clear lines of responsibility, define escalation paths if something looks off, and include audit rights to ensure both sides are living up to the agreement. Forward-thinking athletic departments are building dashboards that track integrity KRIs (key risk indicators) across seasons, and operators are assigning compliance liaisons who can respond quickly to questions about markets, limits, and emerging risks. A valuable signal of sincerity is a proactive stance on contentious markets: choosing not to market college player props or removing them from any alumni-facing creative, sends a message that athlete wellbeing matters more than marginal handle.

A third lane is responsible-gambling (RG) education and independent research, an area where universities can lead with credibility if the funding and governance are set up correctly. The rule of thumb is “help, not hype.” Programming should elevate helplines and support resources, teach students and staff how to recognize early warning signs, and outline practical steps for friends or teammates who are worried about someone’s gambling. Workshops can be built for specific audiences, athletes, coaches, RAs, student leaders – with content tailored to situations they’ll likely encounter, like managing group chats during big games or dealing with harassment tied to a missed free throw. If an operator helps fund this work, the branding should be deliberately muted and the calls to action should point to counseling resources, not betting apps. On the research side, schools can host longitudinal studies on gambling behaviors and mental health that inform policy decisions across states. The key is independence: academic freedom, publication rights, and data privacy are non-negotiable. When these programs release annual reports with outcomes numbers trained, referrals made, satisfaction and knowledge retention scores, they earn trust with regulators and the public.

Embedding all of the above in real governance requires contracts and processes that are as rigorous as anything in broadcast rights or apparel. Agreements should explicitly exclude student-facing channels and campus IP in promotional contexts, require preclearance of all creative, and mandate third-party age and identity checks for any alumni lists used in marketing. Internal workflows matter just as much: establish a cross-functional signoff path that includes compliance, legal, athletics communications, the alumni office, and student affairs; maintain a living registry of all placements; and document every exception request and rejection. A quarterly audit, conducted by an independent partner, should test suppression lists, confirm geo and age parameters, and sample creatives for prohibited phrasing. Crisis preparedness is part of the job: have templates ready for misdirected emails, rogue social posts, and policy changes that force offer adjustments mid-season. Run tabletop exercises with leaders so everyone knows who approves the statement, who pauses the media, who contacts the vendor, and who answers reporter questions. The smoothest crises are the ones that never become public because the response is instant and well-rehearsed.

Looking ahead, the most realistic forecast is a smaller, safer lane for college–operator collaboration. Expect states and conferences to continue refining rules around bet types and advertising, particularly where athlete wellbeing and harassment are implicated. Expect universities to sunset remaining campus-facing placements in favor of alumni-only channels that leave a clean paper trail, lowering both compliance risk and noise around brand stewardship. Expect the integrity conversation to mature, with more standardized data formats, quicker reciprocity on investigations, and better education for the non-athlete campus community, resident advisors, counseling centers, and compliance staff who are often the first to notice when something is off. And expect that schools which articulate a clear philosophy- “We protect students, we protect athletes, we promote help-seeking, and we partner only where age-gated, auditable outcomes exist”, will spend less time in reactive posture and more time telling a positive story about values.

For operators, the business case is quiet credibility. Instead of chasing a fleeting burst of signups tied to a rivalry game, smart brands will invest in long-term reputation: integrity agreements that make competitions safer, alumni engagements that demonstrate real respect for age limits and context, and RG programs that exist to serve the community rather than acquire customers. That approach doesn’t just avoid headlines, it earns allies. Alumni who see careful, adult-only engagement are less likely to bristle at a brand’s presence. Regulators who see documented controls and public reporting are less likely to question motives. University leaders who see proof of restraint are more open to renewing low-risk collaborations. In other words, the playbook that Gambling Freedom recommends is not “do nothing,” but “do the right things, in the right places, for the right reasons.”

The final takeaway is simple: campus gambling deals are no longer a volume game; they are a values game. If your plan cannot be explained in a sentence that starts with student safety, athlete wellbeing, and competition integrity, it’s probably the wrong plan. If your KPIs are built around alumni engagement quality, RG outcomes, and zero incidents—not just clicks and codes, you’re on the right track. And if your processes assume that everything might one day be scrutinized by parents, faculty, alumni, and policymakers, you will build the sort of resilient partnership that can survive news cycles and leadership changes. Gambling Freedom exists to help universities and sportsbooks navigate precisely this terrain, compliance-conscious, PR-smart, and responsibility-first – so that whoever partners on college sports can do so with confidence, clarity, and respect for the communities they serve.

Advertisement

DiffusionData, the pioneer and leader in real-time data streaming, today announced the release of Diffusion 6.12. The latest enhancements have been introduced to speed up development, optimize resource usage, and guarantee consistent, high-performance real-time data delivery.

Grethe Brown, CEO of DiffusionData, said: “As a company, we’ve always been driven by the insights of our community, ensuring our solution directly aligns with client needs. By listening closely to evolving requirements, we’ve introduced enhancements to our framework that addresses real-world developer challenges while boosting operational efficiency. These improvements are designed to accelerate productivity, reduce complexity, and create tangible business value. The ongoing feedback from our customers fuels continuous innovation in Diffusion, enabling our clients to deliver better outcomes and stay competitive.”

Enhancements in Diffusion 6.12 include:

Enhancements to the ‘Set’ Operation in Topic Views
The ‘set’ operation within the Topic Views process clause has been enhanced to support additional use cases and provide greater flexibility when shaping output data. Key improvements include:

Ability to Clear Output Structures
Output structures (objects, arrays, or even the root) can now be emptied prior to selectively copying required items into the output. This simplifies scenarios where large input datasets need to be reduced to only a few items. New special values are available: empty_object and empty array (or, for short, $O and $A respectively). For example, set(, $O) clears the entire output, while set(/pointer, $O) clears only a specific structure.

Copying Items to the Same Output Location
A new “set to pointer” capability allows items (scalars or structures) to be copied directly to the same pointer location in the output. This is particularly useful when repopulating a structure that was previously cleared.

Support for Copying Complete Data Structures
This enhancement enables copying of entire objects or arrays in addition to scalar values, making it possible to move complete structures from input to output which is useful if a higher-level structure has been cleared, but also allows for copying to entirely different structures.

Metric Alerts
There is a new Metrics notifications feature which allows metrics alerts to be notified to topics when certain criteria are satisfied. For example, an alert could be set up which will write to a topic when the memory utilisation exceeds a specified threshold.

Session Authentication – Expiry
There is now a new session property called “$ExpiryTime” which lets an authenticator define when a session should automatically close, in milliseconds. If not set, the session won’t expire. Clients can now use the new re-authenticate method – replacing changePrincipal – to either switch principals or re-authenticate with the same one, while also updating session properties if needed. Clients can check their own fixed session properties, including expiry time, with getSessionProperties. Finally, administrators can use revokeAuthentication to immediately close another client’s session.

Advertisement

Put together, these changes mean that sessions now have clearer lifecycles. They can expire automatically, be refreshed by re-authentication, and be forcibly revoked by administrators when necessary.

Topic View insert ’s now Allowed at any Point in the Specification
Topic view inserts can now appear anywhere in the specification, not just at the end, allowing them to be interspersed with other transformations.

Regular Expression Matching for String Comparison in Topic Views
There is now a new matches or =~ operator available in topic view “process” conditionals. This allows for advanced string comparisons using regular expressions, providing greater flexibility and precision.

Session Lock Query API
There is now a new API available in the ClientControl feature, which enables control clients to query session locks. There is a getSessionLocks method, which returns details of all current session locks, as well as a getSessionLock method to query a specific named session lock.

SubscriptionControl Feature now Cluster Aware
Previously, the SubscriptionControl feature methods to subscribe and unsubscribe sessions would only work for sessions connected to the same server as the control client using the feature. This meant that when Diffusion was running in a cluster a control client would need to connect separately to all servers in the cluster in order to manage all sessions. In this release, all methods in the SubscriptionControl feature apply to all sessions across a cluster.

SELECT_TOPIC Permissions Changes
In 6.12, the SELECT_TOPIC path permission is required for all paths that a topic selector may match — not just the path prefix. In earlier versions, SELECT_TOPIC permission was only required for the prefix of a topic selector. A session could use a selector to access an entire branch of the topic tree as long as it had permission at the top-level path. As a result, it was not possible to selectively remove access from a sub-branch — access to the parent path implicitly granted access to everything below it.

The permission model has now been made more restrictive. To fetch or subscribe using a topic selector, a session must now have SELECT_TOPIC permission for each individual path that the selector may match. This allows SELECT_TOPIC to be granted to a branch of the topic tree and explicitly revoked for specific sub-branches.
For full path pattern topic selectors, the model is even more restrictive: SELECT_TOPIC permission is required for all paths at and below the path prefix. This is necessary to prevent circumvention using advanced regular expressions. This enhancement delivers more granular, flexible, and secure topic access management.

Improvements to the Journal Feature
In 6.12, the Journal feature has been simplified. The feature is now configured in the Server.xml configuration file, and the issued file contains a sample block with the feature disabled. A sample configuration file is now issued in the Diffusion ./etc installation directory which has all possible actions that can be configured, but with all disabled.

Topic Selection Scopes
In previous versions of Diffusion, if two different components of a client application, sharing a single Diffusion connection, subscribed to a topic and one of them later unsubscribed, the topic would be unsubscribed for the session and consequently for all components. Now, it is possible to specify a named scope when subscribing, such that a later unsubscription specifying that scope has no effect on other subscriptions that named a different scope. This allows subscriptions to be localised to the components that need them. There are now new subscription and unsubscription methods that take a scope parameter to support this. Applications using the old methods will continue to work as before, as their subscriptions will all be assigned to a default scope.

Other Improvements

Advertisement

1. In 6.12, both the Diffusion server and Java Client require Java 17. Older clients can still connect, but the 6.12 Java Client is needed to access all new features.
2. The JavaScript Client and Console now support the Safari browser.
3. The Dotnet SDK client can now specify a custom URL path to connect to Diffusion through use of the new parameterless ISessionFactory Open and OpenAsync API in conjunction with the new ISessionFactory attributes: ServerHost , ServerPort , SecureTransport and RequestPath .