New Mexico / Legal position gauge

Moderate risk

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

Why this rating?

New Mexico’s lottery, bet, and gambling-device definitions all use the same chance test: the award is “determined by chance, even though accompanied by some skill” (NMSA 1978, § 30-19-1). A lottery also requires consideration, defined for that subsection as “anything of pecuniary value required to be paid to the promoter in order to participate.” Conducting a lottery in which both the consideration and the prize are money is commercial gambling—a fourth-degree felony (§ 30-19-3(E)). The Gaming Control Act separately permits gaming only if it is licensed under the Act or another law expressly authorizes or exempts it (§ 60-2E-4). In State v. Vento, the Court of Appeals held there was sufficient evidence that a predetermined internet-café sweepstakes was a lottery when customers paid first for almost-unused “internet time,” yet the same computers were not gambling devices because they only displayed results already loaded on a swipe card and could not change them. No reported New Mexico decision has tested mandatory pre-reveal with exact monetary disclosure, genuine accept/decline, and no charge on decline. That timing distinction, plus Vento’s device holding and the statutory “required to participate” consideration text, keeps the rating below elevated risk. Published lottery-sufficiency authority on predetermined cash sweepstakes, the unlicensed-gaming bar, felony commercial-gambling exposure, and bill-acceptor cabinets that look more like Gaming Control Act machines than Vento’s PCs keep it out of the unsettled band.

This gauge also weighs that we identified no charges and no decided case in New Mexico against a game that used a full-pool reveal together with mandatory pre-reveal. Banilla, Torch, and JD Prime used an optional viewer of the next assigned result after money was already on the machine. Café terminals paid first, then revealed. Those fact patterns are not this architecture and do not, by themselves, set the rating.

Scale: High risk → Elevated risk → Moderate risk → Unsettled → Moderately favorable → Favorable → Strong position. These are editorial categories, not probabilities of approval or findings of legality.

Source review date: . Has this exact model been tested? · Counsel checklist · Authorities

NCG GAMESNew Mexico position brief
New Mexico  /  Position brief

New Mexico already split lottery from the machine.
Vento never tested a disclosed decline.

In 2012 the Court of Appeals held that an internet-café sweepstakes with a finite, predetermined prize file could still be a lottery if customers were really paying to play—yet the same computers were not “gambling devices,” because they only displayed results already loaded on a swipe card and could not change them. The NCG position is that Vento never tested a transaction that discloses the exact monetary result before any payment is required and that lets the player decline at no charge. New Mexico’s lottery statute defines consideration as value “required to be paid to the promoter in order to participate.”

Has this been tested? What remains for New Mexico counsel
Working position

This brief analyzes the proposed transaction architecture under current New Mexico law. It is not a finding of legality, Gaming Control Board approval, tribal-compact authorization, or permission to operate cash-prize devices. Unlicensed gaming is barred by § 60-2E-4. Authorized channels include Gaming Control Act licensure (racetrack and qualifying nonprofit machines), the New Mexico Lottery Act, the Horse Racing Act, the Bingo and Raffle Act, and Class III play under tribal-state compact. Commercial gambling on liquor-licensed premises is separately prohibited (§ 60-7A-19).

New Mexico legal starting point

New Mexico criminalizes unlicensed bets, lotteries, and gambling devices, and the Gaming Control Act independently forbids gaming that no statute expressly permits.

NMSA 1978, § 30-19-1(E)

Lottery: prize, chance, and consideration required to participate

A lottery is “an enterprise wherein, for a consideration, the participants are given an opportunity to win a prize, the award of which is determined by chance, even though accompanied by some skill.” Consideration, “as used in this subsection,” means “anything of pecuniary value required to be paid to the promoter in order to participate in a gambling or gaming enterprise.” The state lottery and Gaming Control Act gaming are carved out. State v. Jones restated the classic three-element test: prize, chance, and consideration—the absence of any one is fatal.

NMSA 1978, § 30-19-1(C)

Gambling device: consideration plus a chance award

A gambling device is an unlicensed, non-antique contrivance that, “for a consideration, affords the player an opportunity to obtain anything of value, the award of which is determined by chance, even though accompanied by some skill,” whether or not the prize is paid automatically. Vento held that predetermined reveal terminals that could not accept money or alter loaded results were not devices on those facts. Ten Gaming Devices required consideration paid to the owner before home slots could be forfeited as devices.

NMSA 1978, §§ 60-2E-4, 30-19-3

Unlawful unless licensed or expressly exempted

§ 60-2E-4 permits gaming activity only under the Gaming Control Act or another state or federal law that “expressly permits the activity or exempts it from the application of the state criminal law.” Commercial gambling—including operating a gambling place or conducting a money lottery—is a fourth-degree felony. Simple gambling (making a bet, conducting a lottery) is a petty misdemeanor (§ 30-19-2). Article 19 does not apply to Bingo and Raffle Act activity (§ 30-19-6(B)).

Central timing question: § 30-19-1(E) asks whether pecuniary value is required to be paid to the promoter in order to participate, and whether the prize award is determined by chance. The NCG position is that at acceptance the accepted transaction’s monetary result is already fixed and disclosed—so the player is not paying to participate in an unresolved chance award. New Mexico has not held whether that sequence escapes the lottery definition, and Vento treated predetermined entries as a lottery when customers paid before learning the result and the “product” was a guise.

Safeguard 1

Exact cost and result are known before acceptance.

Before the player becomes financially committed to a transaction, the system discloses the exact transaction cost and exact monetary result. Accept processes only those disclosed terms.

Why this matters under New Mexico law

§ 30-19-1(E) requires consideration paid “in order to participate” in an enterprise whose prize “is determined by chance.” If the economic outcome is already fixed and disclosed before Accept, the strongest NCG argument is that the player is not paying to participate in an unresolved chance award—they are accepting a disclosed, predetermined transaction whose result is already known.

Contrary authority

Vento customers could instantly reveal whether an entry won—or watch a casino-style display—but they had already obtained the entry (typically by paying for internet time). The court did not treat post-purchase reveal, or the fact that the file was predetermined, as removing chance from the lottery analysis. Prosecutors will argue casino-style presentation still frames each session as a chance enterprise from the player’s chair.

Implementation risk

Weakening factors: showing cost/result after partial payment, allowing acceptance before disclosure renders, or mismatch between displayed and settled amounts. Any of those would collapse the timing distinction from Vento and look like the pay-then-reveal café the Court of Appeals sent back for retrial as a lottery.

NMSA 1978, § 30-19-1(E)Timing of consideration is critical
Safeguard 2

Viewing the offer does not require payment.

The player may see the disclosed offer—including zero or negative-net outcomes—without paying for that transaction. Declining imposes no charge for that offer.

Why timing of consideration matters

The lottery statute’s own words are “required to be paid … in order to participate.” Vento involved payment (or a limited free-daily card) before the result was known. A 1973 AG opinion treated true no-purchase participation as defeating the lottery definition. NCG separates inspection from commitment: no consideration moves for a declined offer. That is the factual distinction Vento did not have.

Contrary authority

Prosecutors may argue the player purchased access to a sequence of offers by earlier deposit, and that each Accept still pays to participate. Vento looked through unused “internet time” and a one-card-per-day free path when usage was 0.25% and the operator kept 8%. Jones treated Bank Night’s free registration as a subterfuge. NMGCB’s sweepstakes description requires a genuine no-purchase alternative attached to a legitimate business promotion—not a stand-alone cash cabinet.

Vento ¶¶ 2–5, 23No payment on decline
Safeguard 3

Monetary results and reel positions are predetermined.

Monetary outcomes are fixed before acceptance within a finite predetermined pool. Reels, symbols, and entertainment layers cannot modify the disclosed monetary result after acceptance.

Distinction from New Mexico authorities

Vento ¶¶ 3, 25–26: winning entries were predetermined; the reveal method (instant or casino-style) did not change the result. Predetermination was a fact in Vento, not a defense that won the lottery count. It did defeat the gambling-device count, because the terminals could not accept money, award value independently, or alter data already embedded on the swipe card. NCG’s distinction is not predetermination alone—it is predetermination plus disclosure before financial commitment plus a free decline.

Device versus Gaming Control Act machine

Article 19’s device definition and the Act’s “gaming machine” definition are not identical. A gaming machine is a contrivance that, “upon insertion of a coin, token or similar object, or upon payment of any consideration, is available to play or operate a game” (§ 60-2E-3(U)). A “game” is an activity in which, upon payment of consideration, a player receives a prize determined by chance even though accompanied by some skill (§ 60-2E-3(O)). Bill-acceptor cabinets that load credits look more like Act machines than Vento’s counter-issued swipe cards. Ten Gaming Devices limited forfeiture of unused home slots; it is not a retail cash-cabinet permission slip.

Presentation and labels

American Legion Post No. 49 v. Hughes treated video machines exchanging pull-tabs for free games as commercial gambling under the then-Bingo and Raffle framework. Labels (“sweepstakes,” “promotion,” “entertainment”) did not control in Vento. Casino-style reels will invite NMGCB inspection even if backend logic is a predetermined file.

Vento ¶¶ 25–26Ten Gaming Devices
Safeguard 4

The player may stop and redeem—including cents.

Eligible remaining credits may be redeemed without further play. Redemption includes fractional dollars; balances are not rounded down to trap value in the machine.

Effect on New Mexico analysis

Full redemption supports the argument that only accepted transactions consume value and that the player retains a genuine exit. It may mitigate “trapped balance” or forced-continued-play theories. Vento customers could use winnings to buy more unused internet time; redemption-like recycling of value did not prevent a lottery-sufficiency holding. Non-refundable leftover product was evidence for consideration, not against it.

Limitation

Redemption does not cure an otherwise unlawful lottery or unlicensed game. Gambling devices and equipment used in gambling are subject to seizure and forfeiture under § 30-19-10 and the Forfeiture Act. Unlicensed gaming machines are separately subject to confiscation under the Gaming Control Act. A homeowner who charges a fee to play a slot commits commercial gambling, per NMGCB’s published reading of Ten Gaming Devices.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASH-OUT

$22.00 ticket+$0.67 cents→$0.00 remaining
NMSA 1978, § 30-19-10Exit rights ≠ legality
Safeguard 5

Software enforces non-bypassable rules.

Mandatory pre-reveal, accept/decline, no post-acceptance RNG, predetermined reels, and redemption rules are architecturally enforced—not merely published as disclaimers.

Why enforcement matters in New Mexico

New Mexico sweepstakes and device cases turn on actual mechanics and how customers used the system—not marketing labels. Vento disregarded McDonald’s/Coca-Cola comparisons and measured unused product, retained share, and casino-style display. Software enforcement is how the timing distinction can be proved if charges are brought under §§ 30-19-2 or 30-19-3, or if NMGCB proceeds under the Gaming Control Act.

Implementation risks

Alternate clients, debug modes, stale-offer acceptance, or server paths that charge on preview would collapse the distinction from Vento and expose operators to fourth-degree felony commercial gambling, petty-misdemeanor gambling, device and machine seizure, Forfeiture Act proceedings, and Act crimes for unlicensed manufacture, distribution, or possession of gaming devices. Casino-style presentation without the enforced accept/decline sequence is the fact pattern NMGCB already raided.

NMSA 1978, § 30-19-3Engineering ≠ statutory permission
Required analysis

Has this exact model been tested in New Mexico?

We did not identify a reported appellate decision in New Mexico directly testing this complete transaction architecture—mandatory pre-reveal, exact monetary disclosure before financial commitment, genuine accept/decline with no charge on decline, no post-acceptance randomness, finite predetermined pool, predetermined reels, software-enforced safeguards, and cent-level redemption.

What New Mexico courts and agencies have addressed—and how those systems differ

  • State v. Vento, 2012-NMCA-099, 286 P.3d 627 — Published. Internet café sold internet time with predetermined sweepstakes entries; customers could instantly reveal or play casino-style displays; free daily cards existed but paid time was almost unused (0.25%); operator kept about 8% and paid the rest as prizes. Sufficient evidence of a lottery; insufficient evidence that the terminals were gambling devices; conviction reversed because a general verdict mixed mutually exclusive lottery and bet theories; remanded for retrial on lottery only. Certiorari granted, 2012-NMCERT-009; we did not identify a New Mexico Supreme Court opinion superseding the Court of Appeals decision. Partially analogous on predetermined finite pool, electronic reveal, cash prizes, and a limited free path. Materially distinguishable because consideration occurred before the result was known and there was no accept/decline with zero cost on rejection of a disclosed result.
  • State v. Jones, 1940-NMSC-066, 44 N.M. 623, 107 P.2d 324 — Binding. Theater “Bank Night” held a lottery; prize, chance, and consideration; free registration did not eliminate consideration when the scheme was designed to increase paid admissions. Overruled City of Roswell v. Jones on that point. Partially analogous on look-through consideration. Materially distinguishable: no electronic device, no pre-reveal accept/decline architecture, decided under prior lottery law without today’s § 30-19-1(E) sentence defining consideration.
  • State ex rel. N.M. Gaming Control Bd. v. Ten (10) Gaming Devices, 2005-NMCA-117, 138 N.M. 426, 120 P.3d 848 — Published. Unlicensed home slot machines used only by owners and social guests, with no fee to the owner, were neither Gaming Control Act “gaming machines” nor Criminal Code “gambling devices” and could not be forfeited on those facts. Certiorari quashed. Not applicable as a test of NCG architecture; relevant to the consideration element of the device definition and to the Act’s private-residence exclusion. NMGCB’s own FAQ warns that charging a fee to play a home slot is commercial gambling.
  • State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson, 1995-NMSC-048, 120 N.M. 562, 904 P.2d 11 — Binding. Governor lacked authority to bind the state to a tribal gaming compact; lottery definition described as “extremely broad” (then § 30-19-1(C), 1994 pamphlet; now § 30-19-1(E)); a form of gaming is a lottery or a bet, not both. Not applicable to NCG mechanics; confirms classification structure and compactness of authorized Class III gaming.
  • American Legion Post No. 49 v. Hughes, 1994-NMCA-153, 120 N.M. 255, 901 P.2d 186 — Video machines exchanging pull tabs for free games held impermissible under the then-Bingo and Raffle Act as sanctioning commercial gambling. Partially analogous on electronic prize machines. Materially distinguishable: charitable-gaming statute, not a pre-reveal accept/decline system.
  • State v. Marchiondo, 1973-NMCA-137, 85 N.M. 627, 515 P.2d 146 — “Gambling devices” given ordinary meaning: devices normally associated with gambling. Not applicable to NCG timing; relevant if cabinets are presented as slots.
  • N.M. Att’y Gen. Op. No. 73-31 (1973) — Non-binding. A nightclub raffle in which a person could participate without paying anything of pecuniary value was not a lottery under the statutory definition. Partially analogous on the “required to participate” idea. Not a holding, and not a cash-device opinion.
  • N.M. Att’y Gen. Op. No. 2025-07 (2025) — Non-binding. Addressed whether a Lottery Authority courier MOU with Jackpocket authorized internet gaming and triggered compact renegotiation. Not applicable to brick-and-mortar pre-reveal terminals; shows current compact sensitivity to new gaming formats.
  • New Mexico Gaming Control Board FAQs (current) — Sweepstakes described as promotions of legitimate business objectives with a no-purchase alternative. Unlicensed gambling prohibited under § 60-2E-4 and Article 19. Board does not license internet gambling. Regulatory guidance and historical café enforcement, not a judicial test of NCG architecture.
  • 12.2.2 NMAC (game promotions) — Unfair-practice disclosure rules for skill or chance promotions that require consideration. The part states it does not authorize a lottery prohibited by gambling statutes. Consumer-protection regulation, not a gaming license.

Enforcement and regulatory activity (not judicial approval)

NMGCB agents raided the Vento café and the State charged commercial gambling. The Board’s public materials still treat unlicensed chance-for-money activity—including “casino nights”—as prohibited. We did not identify an Attorney General opinion specifically approving mandatory pre-reveal, accept/decline, cash-redemption terminals. Opinion 2025-07 concerns lottery courier / compact issues, not this architecture. Absence of a decision testing this complete architecture is not a judicial determination of legality.

Critical distinction

“No reported New Mexico decision directly testing this architecture” is materially different from “A New Mexico court has ruled this architecture legal.” Neither statement has been found true here. Vento is the closest published analogue—and it is adverse on payment-before-reveal predetermined sweepstakes as a lottery, while helpful on the device count for display-only predetermined terminals.

No direct New Mexico appellate precedent identified
Strongest contrary arguments

What New Mexico prosecutors and regulators could argue.

1. Vento already involved a predetermined file and a reveal step

A published opinion treated payment, then reveal of a pre-assigned prize, as sufficient evidence of a lottery. Counsel must explain—with facts, not labels—why disclosure before commitment and a free decline are legally different from Vento’s post-purchase reveal, and why a credit-loading cabinet is not the same “guise” as unused internet time.

2. Jones look-through consideration

The Supreme Court refused to sever prize-by-chance from the money customers actually paid. Depositing credits to see a stream of unknown offers can be cast as the modern Bank Night: the inspection is free only in form.

3. Chance even though accompanied by some skill

§ 30-19-1 does not use a predominance test. A “no chance game” or “skill” label can be turned against the operator. Sequence uncertainty about the next offer may be enough for a jury that already accepted chance in Vento despite a predetermined file.

4. Gaming Control Act licensing wall and machine definition

§ 60-2E-4 is an independent prohibition. If the cabinet is a “gaming machine” available to play a “game” upon payment of consideration, it must be licensed (racetrack or qualifying nonprofit) or expressly exempted. Vento’s Article 19 device holding does not decide the Act question for bill-acceptor kiosks. Unlicensed manufacture, distribution, or possession of gaming devices is separately criminalized in Article 2E.

5. Commercial gambling is a fourth-degree felony; devices can be seized

§ 30-19-3 (commercial gambling), § 30-19-2 (petty-misdemeanor gambling), § 30-19-5 (dealing in gambling devices), § 30-19-10 (forfeiture), and liquor-premise § 60-7A-19 apply if the activity is unlawful gambling. Money-consideration / money-prize lotteries are the felony form in § 30-19-3(E).

6. Session-wide staking and credit balances

Money inserted upfront creates a continuing credit balance. Each Accept may be characterized as paying to participate across a session—the structure Vento treated as a guise for a lottery, not a series of disclosed sales.

7. Tribal compact, lottery, and NMGCB posture

Class III slot exclusivity and racetrack machine caps are political and compact facts. Opinion 2025-07 shows compact sensitivity to new gaming formats. Slot-like retail cabinets will invite the same investigative path NMGCB used in Vento, even if backend logic differs.

NCG factual responses and residual risk

Responses: at acceptance the monetary result is fixed and known; declines cost nothing; no post-acceptance RNG; Vento involved payment-before-outcome mechanics and a sham product; the lottery consideration definition is “required to be paid … in order to participate”; Vento itself held predetermined display terminals were not gambling devices. The NCG theory is the timing of consideration and chance under § 30-19-1(E), not a claim of Bingo and Raffle or amusement licensing. Residual risk: published Vento lottery-sufficiency authority, Jones look-through, an any-skill-still-counts chance test, the § 60-2E-4 licensing wall, felony commercial gambling, seizure/forfeiture, and NMGCB’s café-raid history remain material pending New Mexico counsel review. The timing distinction is supportable; it is not settled.

VentoAdverse authority must be addressed, not dismissed
Complete transaction analysis

Chronology: when is the player financially committed?

“The player accepts or declines a fully disclosed, predetermined transaction. No later random event alters the monetary result. The legal question is whether New Mexico treats that sequence as consideration required to participate in a chance award under § 30-19-1(E)—or as something materially different from the pay-then-reveal café in Vento.”

This is the position to test—not a New Mexico legal conclusion. Compare to Vento (buy or receive entries, then reveal a pre-assigned prize; lottery evidence sufficient; terminals not devices) and Jones (look through a “free” prize night attached to paid admission).

  1. 1 / POOLFinite pool predetermined
  2. 2 / REQUESTPlayer requests next offer
  3. 3 / REVEALExact result disclosed
  4. 4 / TERMSCost and result both known
  5. 5 / CHOICEAccept or decline
  6. 6 / SETTLENo post-accept RNG
  7. 7 / EXITRedeem remaining cents
Authorities

Primary New Mexico sources.

Verified . Binding precedent and statutes distinguished from Attorney General opinions, Board FAQs, and consumer-protection rules.

  1. [1]
    New Mexico statute · definitions

    NMSA 1978, § 30-19-1 ↗

    Bet (chance even though accompanied by some skill; lottery excluded); gambling device; gambling place; lottery and the subsection-specific consideration definition. Official compilation also at nmonesource.com. Clark cited the lottery definition as paragraph C under 1994 numbering; current lottery text is paragraph E after the 2002 amendments.

  2. [2]
    New Mexico statute · commercial gambling

    NMSA 1978, § 30-19-3 ↗

    Commercial gambling—fourth-degree felony—including operating a gambling place and conducting a lottery where both consideration and prize are money. Vento was charged under § 30-19-3(A) (1963).

  3. [3]
    New Mexico Court of Appeals · published

    State v. Vento, 2012-NMCA-099 ↗

    286 P.3d 627. Predetermined café sweepstakes: sufficient lottery evidence; terminals not gambling devices; general-verdict reversal; remand for lottery retrial. Official Court of Appeals PDF. Certiorari granted, 2012-NMCERT-009; no superseding Supreme Court opinion identified.

  4. [4]
    New Mexico statute · Gaming Control Act definitions

    NMSA 1978, § 60-2E-3 ↗

    “Game,” “gaming,” “gaming device,” and “gaming machine” (coin/token or payment of any consideration available to play a game). Private-residence exclusion for games where no one makes money except as a player.

  5. [5]
    New Mexico statute · limited gaming

    NMSA 1978, § 60-2E-4 ↗

    Gaming activity permitted only under the Gaming Control Act or another state or federal law that expressly permits the activity or exempts it from state criminal law, or both.

  6. [6]
    New Mexico statute · gambling

    NMSA 1978, § 30-19-2 ↗

    Gambling—petty misdemeanor—for making a bet, remaining in a gambling place to bet, participate in a lottery, or play a device, conducting a lottery, or possessing lottery facilities.

  7. [7]
    New Mexico statute · exclusions

    NMSA 1978, § 30-19-6 ↗

    Theater advertising drawings; Article 19 inapplicable to Bingo and Raffle Act activity. See also New Mexico Lottery Act, §§ 6-24-1 to -34, and Bingo and Raffle Act, §§ 60-2F-1 to -26 (2009 recodification of the former 60-2B act).

  8. [8]
    New Mexico Court of Appeals · published

    Ten (10) Gaming Devices, 2005-NMCA-117 ↗

    138 N.M. 426, 120 P.3d 848. Home slots without consideration to the owner were not forfeitable gaming machines or gambling devices. Certiorari quashed, 2006-NMCERT-003.

  9. [9]
    New Mexico statute · forfeiture

    NMSA 1978, § 30-19-10 ↗

    Gambling devices and equipment used in gambling are subject to forfeiture; Forfeiture Act procedures apply (amended from the older destroy-by-court-order text).

  10. [10]
    New Mexico Supreme Court · binding

    State v. Jones, 1940-NMSC-066 ↗

    44 N.M. 623, 107 P.2d 324. Bank Night lottery; prize, chance, and consideration; look-through of “free” registration. Decided under prior law.

  11. [11]
    New Mexico Supreme Court · binding

    Clark v. Johnson, 1995-NMSC-048 ↗

    120 N.M. 562, 904 P.2d 11. Compact authority; lottery definition “extremely broad”; lottery and bet mutually exclusive. Historical paragraph C is now paragraph E.

  12. [12]
    New Mexico Gaming Control Board · guidance

    NMGCB FAQs & Info ↗

    Current Board materials: unlicensed gambling prohibited; authorized channels listed; sweepstakes described as legitimate-business promotions with a no-purchase path; internet gambling not licensed. Not a judicial holding.

  13. [13]
    New Mexico Attorney General · non-binding

    N.M. Att’y Gen. Op. No. 2025-07 ↗

    Jackpocket / Lottery Authority courier MOU and compact renegotiation. Official NMDOJ PDF. Not an approval of pre-reveal cash terminals. See also historical Op. No. 73-31 (no-purchase raffle).

  14. [14]
    New Mexico statute · liquor premises

    NMSA 1978, § 60-7A-19 ↗

    Commercial gambling prohibited on liquor-licensed premises, with listed exceptions for the Lottery Act, specified Article 19 activity, and Gaming Control Act gaming.

Disclaimer: This brief is research and issue-spotting for professional discussion—not legal advice, Gaming Control Board approval, tribal-compact authorization, Lottery Authority permission, or authorization to operate. No New Mexico Attorney General opinion specifically addressing mandatory pre-reveal NCG architecture was identified. Vento remains the published Court of Appeals analysis; Attorney General opinions and Board FAQs are not binding precedent. New Mexico counsel should verify all citations against the official compilation at nmonesource.com, effective dates, local enforcement practices, compact and lottery exclusivity questions, and the actual deployed software before any compliance representation.