Yeah, guys, I'm pretty sure that that potential inconsistency has been touched on in at least one past thread either here and/or over on VFV. They aren't allowing contestants to put in entries from outside the state on the mobile app, ostensibly due to the Wire Act; but the contest rules explicitly allow for proxies, who (in most cases) receive the same selection info across state lines.
Perhaps they have a slick legal opinion by some high-priced law firm that irons out that seeming inconsistency in some fashion. I just know that as a practical matter, the books appear to believe that they're constrained by the state line in themselves taking entries.
Also perhaps I could stop what I'm doing and instead do some in-depth analysis and research -- for free -- to reconcile the two situations. But, given my current employment, I then wouldn't be able to share that opinion in any event. Again, as a practical matter, in discussing the point that we were talking about, they're not likely to accept selections from outside the state online due to their apparent understanding of how the Wire Act operates at least in that context. Whatever other hobgoblins of possible inconsistency may be there in the understanding and application of the Wire Act, the books do appear to understand it to mean that the mobile app must extend no further than the state line.
On the $22K, that was another thing I was curious about from the interview. (I am curious about the Wire Act point, too, just not the equivalent of potentially thousands of dollars worth of my time curious. If it's not on my actual work desk to work on . . . .) I believe that Salinas used the word "disqualified" earlier in the interview and then later used the word "banned." I wonder whether they disqualified the proxy also as a contestant from receiving the prize money, over and above banning them from being a proxy in the future. The SuperContest rules (I believe in each one of their contests) states that Westgate "may disqualify any person for any prize based upon [Westgate's] belief of the possible commission of fraud, dishonest, violation of contest rules or other misconduct whether or not related to [the] contest." (They may have meant that to read "fraud, dishonesty," etc.) Might not be all that hard to fit this situation into that language. Not so sure that the ex-proxy would want to challenge such a prize money disqualification -- as if it were me I wouldn't want gaming and possibly others looking more deeply into the situation, although I, due to my employment, again express no definitive opinion as to any further legal issues that might be presented.
For me, as a longtime contestant rather than as also a lawyer, the situation does reinforce the potential perils of relying on others to put your picks in, although that of course has been an integral part of the recent rapid rise in these contests, sparked by social media.
At the same time, I wouldn't necessarily tar all proxies with the same brush as this one.