Your Money, Your Winnings, Their Rights?

The Gambler’s Code

There’s an old rule among gamblers, and it’s a simple one. You mind your own business, you mind your own money, and you respect the other guy’s privacy. You don’t ask what someone won, what he lost, what he bet or what’s in his pocket unless he invites the conversation.

Some people like to talk about their scores. Some want their picture taken holding the oversized check. Others would rather collect and quietly go home. That’s their business. Not yours, not mine, and certainly not Churchill Downs Incorporated’s.

Apparently, somebody at TwinSpires missed that lesson.

On October 15, 2026, horseplayer Andy Asaro, a member of the Gamblers Hall of Fame, called attention to language in the TwinSpires Terms and Conditions that should concern anyone with a wagering account. The TwinSpires support page displaying those terms is stamped updated that same day. Whether the language first appeared that day or earlier, the questions are the same.

Here is what it says. By visiting or using TwinSpires, or by accepting any winnings or prize, you grant TwinSpires and its affiliates a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, enterprise-wide, royalty-free right to use your name, photograph, image, likeness, statements, biographical information, voice, and city and state of residence. For lawful marketing, promotion and advertising relating to TwinSpires and its affiliates’ products and services. Without additional compensation, notification or permission.

You read that correctly. Visiting. Not winning a contest. Not signing a separate release. Visiting. Personally, my IP address will never appear in their analytics while this policy is in place.

It gets worse. Customers agree to sign any publicity release TwinSpires requests. And they release the company and its affiliates from claims for violation of privacy or publicity rights, defamation and libel arising from the use of those rights. A defamation release. In a marketing clause.

Then there’s the sentence right before it, which nobody seems to be talking about. It allows TwinSpires to use data, questions, comments or suggestions for features or services that customers transmit or post, without further permission or compensation, for purposes including disclosure and publication. That language concerns submitted material; it does not expressly authorize publication of confidential wagering records. But it certainly deserves attention alongside the publicity release.

Since when does opening an account to bet horses mean handing a gambling company perpetual commercial rights to your identity? Who decided that was necessary? Who thought it was a good idea? And who thought it was good for the customer?

Nobody Signed Up for This

How does a clause like this reach players who opened accounts years ago? The terms provide that changes take effect upon posting and that continued use constitutes acceptance. Customers are directed to review the terms regularly. The general amendment provision does not itself promise an email, a letter or a fresh checkbox before changes become effective.

Compare that with TwinSpires’ own Privacy & Security page. It says material changes to the privacy policy will be mailed to players’ physical addresses. It also describes restrictions on sharing personal information with non-affiliated third parties without written consent. Those are different policies, with different purposes, but the contrast is worth examining. Written consent and mailed notice are important when the company says they are. Yet the general wagering agreement claims broad publicity rights through use of the service.

And if a player feels wronged? The terms require individual arbitration unless the customer opts out, and they waive class, collective and representative proceedings for disputes covered by that provision. The stated opt-out window is 30 days after first accepting the terms. Whether customers with older accounts received a fresh opportunity to opt out under the current agreement is a question worth asking. The terms also attempt to impose a one-year deadline for bringing claims, subject to applicable legal limitations.

Let me be clear. I am not saying TwinSpires has published anyone’s wagering records, exposed anyone’s losses or misused anyone’s identity. I have no evidence that has happened. The NIL clause doesn’t expressly authorize publishing wagering histories or balances, and its stated purpose is marketing, promotion and advertising. What I’m questioning is the breadth of the rights the company is attempting to obtain, why it believes it needs them, and whether they square with the privacy a regulated wagering account is supposed to carry.

Consider a customer with an account his spouse doesn’t know about. Maybe he bets recreationally. Maybe he’s a serious player. Maybe he just doesn’t want anyone knowing his business. It doesn’t matter. Why should he have to wonder whether his name or face could turn up in a TwinSpires campaign because he opened an account or cashed a ticket?

What if I don’t want my wife knowing I bet? Who the hell are they to tell her?

Oregon Already Has a Rule for This

This is where it moves past my opinion.

TwinSpires operates under Oregon’s account wagering regulatory framework, and its own terms generally designate Oregon law as governing, apart from the arbitration provision. Oregon Administrative Rule 462-210-0010(11) defines confidential information to include wagering amounts, account balances, account credentials and the identities of horses or entries on which a customer wagered. It also includes the customer’s name, address and other identifying information, unless otherwise authorized by the account holder.

OAR 462-210-0040(16) restricts employees and agents of an account wagering center from divulging confidential information related to wagering or account operations, subject to specified exceptions.

Note the key words: unless otherwise authorized by the account holder.

So here’s the question for TwinSpires and the Oregon Racing Commission. Does TwinSpires contend that visiting a website counts as a customer authorizing the promotional use of his identity? If so, I’d like to hear the Commission say that out loud. The clause itself applies only except as prohibited by law or regulation. If Oregon’s rules prohibit a particular disclosure, a contractual publicity release cannot simply override that prohibition.

The regulations and the contractual language need to be read together. They do not automatically establish a violation. They do establish a legitimate question about what constitutes authorization and where the boundaries of confidentiality lie.

The States Weigh In Too

Florida Statute 540.08 generally prohibits commercial or advertising use of a person’s name or likeness without express written or oral consent, subject to exceptions. California Civil Code 3344 protects against certain unauthorized commercial uses of a person’s name, voice, photograph or likeness.

These laws don’t necessarily outlaw a properly obtained publicity release. Whether acceptance of a wagering agreement constitutes sufficient consent depends on the jurisdiction, the contractual process and the particular use.

But that’s exactly the point. Why should a horseplayer need to study state publicity statutes before opening a wagering account? We’re supposed to be making it easier to play this game, not harder to trust the people taking the bets.

“Everybody Does It”

Before someone rushes to defend Churchill Downs by telling me everyone has this language, I looked at what I could find.

FanDuel’s fantasy sports Terms of Use contain a publicity provision connected to entering contests. It permits specified uses of a participant’s name, voice, likeness, location and photograph in connection with contests and FanDuel promotions, subject to applicable law. That deserves scrutiny too.

But look at the differences in the general agreements. FanDuel’s contest publicity provision is triggered by entering a contest, not merely by visiting the website. The general provision reviewed does not contain the same express release of defamation and libel claims found in the TwinSpires NIL paragraph. FanDuel has used additional, more expansive releases for certain special competitions, so its practices should not be confused with an absolute prohibition on such language.

There is also the question of notice. FanDuel’s general terms say users will be notified of material changes before they take effect. TwinSpires’ general amendment provision allows changes to become effective upon posting.

The company TwinSpires is being compared to expressly promises advance notice of material changes in its general terms. TwinSpires reserves the right to change those terms upon posting them.

Xpressbet’s published terms and NYRA Bets’ published terms and privacy policies also address customer information and wagering. In the materials reviewed, I did not identify an equivalent blanket, perpetual NIL grant triggered simply by using an account or accepting winnings. That is not a claim that no comparable provision exists anywhere in their policies or promotional agreements.

But even if everybody had it, would that make it right? Necessary? Good for the sport? Of course not. This industry has a bad habit of confusing what it can do with what it should do. Something can be legal and still be a terrible business decision. Standard language can still insult the customers asked to swallow it.

Their Images, Your Image

There’s another detail in the TwinSpires terms worth a look. TwinSpires bars customers from copying or retransmitting its logos, graphics, sounds or images without permission. It warns that unauthorized use of images on its site may violate intellectual property, privacy and publicity laws. So TwinSpires understands exactly how important it is to control the commercial use of an image. When the image belongs to TwinSpires.

Their images require permission. Your image? They built the permission into your wagering account. The rights are legally different, but the contrast in how permission is handled is difficult to miss.

Your Identity Is Their Business. Their Disputes Are Confidential.

And here’s where the hypocrisy becomes especially difficult to ignore.

Buried in those same TwinSpires Terms and Conditions, under the arbitration provisions, is another requirement. Arbitration proceedings and awards, including hearings and documents submitted to the arbitrator, must generally remain confidential, subject to specified exceptions for legal proceedings and other circumstances. Think about that. TwinSpires wants broad contractual rights to use your identity in marketing, without additional notification or permission. But when you have a dispute with TwinSpires, the company insists on confidentiality. Apparently you are transparent, but they are not.

Your identity may be used to promote their business. Their disputes with you are supposed to remain private.

There are legitimate legal reasons for confidentiality in arbitration. I get that. But there are equally legitimate reasons for a gambler to expect privacy when conducting his own business. Apparently, one kind of privacy gets written directly into the agreement for the company’s protection. The other gets subjected to a sweeping publicity release.

And there’s more.

If you want to initiate arbitration, the agreement requires a written demand bearing an original physical signature, delivered by the prescribed methods. Digital, electronic or copied signatures are expressly rejected. The terms also provide for individual proceedings and generally require the parties to share arbitration fees unless applicable law requires a different allocation.

So let me understand this. Visiting a website can supposedly grant perpetual rights to use your identity, but initiating a formal dispute requires an original physical signature? Your publicity rights can be addressed through website use. Your complaint needs ink on paper. Someone explain the customer-friendly logic behind that. I am not suggesting the arbitration clause is necessarily unlawful. Its enforceability, including its procedural requirements, depends on applicable law. Nor am I suggesting arbitration confidentiality and publicity rights serve identical purposes. I’m asking why the company appears so particular about protecting the confidentiality of its disputes while seeking such expansive rights over the identities of the customers involved. Fair question. I think so.

What About the Big Players?

Does this apply equally to every customer? Churchill Downs also owns Velocity, a high-volume wagering business associated with sophisticated and international customers. Its computer-assisted wagering activities have also been discussed in litigation involving the company.

The TwinSpires provision extends to marketing involving affiliates’ products and services. Does that mean the company considers Velocity among the businesses that could benefit from those rights? And are Velocity customers subject to comparable publicity provisions themselves?

Are those customers handing over the same rights? Or do their private agreements protect them in ways the rest of us aren’t offered? I don’t know. That’s the point. Ownership alone doesn’t establish that every Velocity customer is subject to the TwinSpires wagering agreement. But a recreational player betting $20 shouldn’t have to surrender broader publicity rights than a sophisticated customer betting millions simply because one has the leverage to negotiate. If the agreements differ, explain how. If they don’t, say so. That should have been done simultaneously to this “rollout.”

Is This How We Grow the Game?

We spend an extraordinary amount of time talking about attracting new fans and bettors. Committees, conferences, consultants, campaigns, slogans. Enough meetings about growing the game to fill the grandstand at Churchill Downs. Yet one of the most recognizable wagering platforms in the sport is asking customers to surrender rights that have nothing to do with making a bet, cashing a ticket or enjoying the races.

Is this how we grow the game? By telling people that doing business with us gives us rights to their identity? I don’t think so.

The Security Questions

Gambling accounts hold sensitive information. TwinSpires’ privacy materials discuss wagering history, identifying information and financial account data among the information it collects. They also describe security measures and restrictions on access and disclosure. Those protections exist for good reason. Exposing sensitive information can cost someone far more than an unwanted advertisement. CDI was fast on the draw to criticize HISA over sensitive information being leaked now they expect anyone who visits TwinSpires to just trust them. No thank you.

What safeguards govern the use of customer identities in promotions? Who signs off? Is there a review to make sure no confidential wagering information leaks into marketing? Can a customer decline promotional use and keep betting? Can permission be withdrawn? What responsibility does the company accept if a promotional use causes harm?

And why does a marketing clause need a defamation and libel release? A court may not enforce it in every case. But someone chose to write it in. Why?

The Choice Should Be Theirs

Churchill Downs has been part of American racing for more than 150 years. It controls the sport’s most famous race and one of its biggest wagering brands. That position comes with a responsibility to set the standard for how customers are treated.

Instead, we’re looking at a wagering agreement that attempts to secure sweeping publicity rights from the very people the industry says it desperately needs.

Nobody’s saying a wagering company can’t celebrate a customer’s big score when the customer wants it celebrated. Ask. Explain what you want to do. Get real permission. Pay if it’s appropriate. There’s nothing complicated about it.

I’ve spent most of my life around gamblers. Serious ones, recreational ones, winners, losers, and some of the best players ever to approach a betting window. I learned a long time ago that trust matters. Privacy matters. Discretion matters. The customer is entitled to all three.

You don’t build loyalty by seeing how many rights you can get someone to surrender before their next bet. You build it by earning it.

So here’s my suggestion for TwinSpires and Churchill Downs. Explain why this provision is necessary. Explain how it squares with Oregon’s confidentiality rules and the publicity laws where your customers live. Explain whether your largest customers live under the same terms.

Then do the right thing. Make publicity permission a separate, informed, voluntary choice. Not a condition buried in a wagering agreement. Not something triggered by cashing a ticket. Not a perpetual right customers don’t know they gave away. A choice.

Without the bettors, there is no handle. Without the handle, there is no game. And without the trust of the people providing that handle, all the marketing in the world won’t save it.

The money is theirs. The identity is theirs. The choice should be theirs. That shouldn’t be a controversial position. It should be the starting point.

Does Anyone Have Commish Repole’s Number?