They exclude Florida, New York and Rhose Island residents but allow Venezuelan residents to participate in the promotion?
Sorry, but I fail to see the logic in that. Since I am in South America as well, I do get a lot of news from Venezuela that may not be relayed to the rest of the world, and that's why I am baffled by this rule. Since I don't want to start a political argument, I'll quote Forrest Gump: "and that's all I have to say about that".
Apparently, those states have conditions that keysight doesn't want to satisfy. I found the following statement regarding sweepstakes in these states:
"when designing a sweepstakes it is important to be mindful of the total prize amount, because prizes above certain cash (or cash equivalent) thresholds may trigger specific sweepstakes registration and bonding requirements in three states: Florida, New York and Rhode Island."
If I were in Keysight's position, I would not be particularly keen on satisfying those conditions. Just looking at Florida, New York and Rhode Island is enough to put on the brakes.
For starters, there's going to be some paperwork - and that is going to take time to both research and complete. Also, I would expect the requirements between states to be different, so it won't be a matter of filling out one set of documents and copying the information onto the other forms.
The next thought I have is a guess, but something that would be discovered during the paperwork research... and that is taking into consideration any legal obligations that may ensue. There are so many possibilities here that I dare not even try to list them, but, for example, if they require Daniel to offer his right arm and left leg, then there may not be enough of him to go around.
Then, there's going to be an issue with monetary commitment. I don't know what the requirements are, but I would not think it unreasonable to require a security bond equivalent to a percentage of the total prize pool value ... and that percentage could be 100. You can bet each state is going to have their own requirement, independent of any other.
While the prospect of doing this for 3 states of America may be daunting enough, one could argue that, for a company like Keysight, it would be doable. Keysight may or may not agree but, to me, there is the far more worrying issue of setting a precedent. Once Keysight jumps through the hoops for any state/country, then people in other states/countries will start asking "What about us?" The pressure will be enormous - far more than it is now - and for Keysight to continue to travel down that road will almost certainly result in an expensive and very time consuming journey.
It is not an exercise that is going to be practical, let alone justifiable.
I wish it were otherwise.