IAGR 2026 in Lima: sports integrity and regulatory tech take center stage on October 20

The second day of the International Association of Gaming Regulators’ annual conference in Lima focused on the mechanics of supervision: sports betting integrity, cybersecurity, and regulatory technology. For PSPs and operators in high-risk verticals, the useful bit is straightforward: regulators are looking for cleaner data, faster detection, and better tools to spot suspicious activity.

1. The opening session was titled “Sports betting integrity, suspicious betting and convergence with event markets.” It brought together Fernando Quiñones, vice president of Baloncesto Superior Nacional de Puerto Rico; Adam Bjorn, CEO of Plannatech US; and Khalid Ali, CEO of the International Betting Integrity Association (IBIA), to discuss integrity risks, suspicious wagering, and the growing overlap between sports betting and event markets.
2. Mike Dreitzer, president of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, delivered the keynote and framed the regulator-operator relationship around the practical limits of oversight. Drawing on Nevada’s 70 years of gaming history, he stressed that regulators need to understand new technology and keep pace with cyber threats. His line was blunt: “Deception is not innovation.”
3. The third presentation, “Regulatory technology that works,” focused on cleaner and more reliable databases built from real-time data collection. The point, in practice, is better oversight with more precise control over operations. The panel featured Cyril Casanova, CEO of Sharp Vision, and Dan Hartman, senior consultant at GMA.
4. The afternoon sessions on the second day were dedicated to regulatory challenges and the fight against illegal gambling on an international scale. The conference also featured a keynote by Sarah Gardner, though the source text cuts off before providing her full title or the substance of her remarks.

For high-risk payment teams, the signal from a conference like this is not abstract. Regulators are still circling the same operational pressure points: suspicious betting patterns, cyber risk, data quality, and the gap between what technology can do and what supervisory frameworks can actually see.