I think you may misunderstand the purpose of the gambling laws here. Do you have a citation for their purpose as a consumer-protection measure?
Given the government's heavy use of lotteries and other gambling as a cash source, the laws appear to be designed by lawmakers with a solid understanding of chance and probability and a desire to ensure that monetary gambling (with gambling defined as "an activity where the influence of chance outweighs the benefits of skill, for most participants") be restricted to the state, not commercial entities.
It might very well be the case. I'm not sure about their motives, I even said so. I don't see how that affects the poorly written definition and the case that poker and fantasy sports are games of skill.
The relevant point being that not everybody believes they're a "game of skill" in the "skill vs. chance" slider which is relevant to the law. While there's no question that like every game, user actions (skill) can impact the outcome, how much it can impact the outcome is what determines whether something is classified as a game of skill or chance. Perhaps it's more clear if we say "a game of primarily skill" or "primarily chance".
If daily fantasy sports is primarily skill-based, they can do it. If it's primarily chance-based, it's illegal in the US. Which is why they're pushing for it to be referred to as "skill-based".
Some laws use a predominance test; New York law, which seems to be the main focus, does not -- it uses material element of chance standard, which can apply even when a game is primarily skill-based.
Given the government's heavy use of lotteries and other gambling as a cash source, the laws appear to be designed by lawmakers with a solid understanding of chance and probability and a desire to ensure that monetary gambling (with gambling defined as "an activity where the influence of chance outweighs the benefits of skill, for most participants") be restricted to the state, not commercial entities.