NEWS FLASH: Major Web sites hit with suit over gambling ads

[Luv2DriveTT]

CNET NEWS FLASH (http://news.com.com/Major+Web+sites+hit+with+suit+over+gambling+ads/2100-1032_3-5295769.html?tag=nefd.top)

Published: August 3, 2004, 5:44 PM PDT
By Ben Charny
Staff Writer, CNET News.com


Some gambling ads on Google, Yahoo and other major Web sites are illegal in California, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The 60-page filing, presented in San Francisco Superior Court, alleges that the companies sell rights to Web advertisements based on searches for terms such as "illegal gambling," "Internet gambling" and "California gambling."

The online businesses also use geotracking software to target particular regions, including California, for illegal gambling ads, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit demands that the companies stop accepting the advertisements and give California "millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains," said attorney Ira Rothken, one of several attorneys from firms involved in the class-action lawsuit.

The suit is the latest to involve Internet gambling, which has become a multibillion-dollar-a-year business and is usually focused on online poker or blackjack. Wireless interests, including European cell phone service providers, also offer gambling opportunities to their subscribers.

Yahoo and Google, in turn, rake in a majority of the millions of dollars gambling firms spend on advertising, according to the lawsuit. Representatives from the two companies did not return a call seeking comment.

In all, about a dozen high-profile Web companies are named as defendants. Included among them is CNET Networks, publisher of News.com.

[krazyace5]

Worthless attorneys looking for big bucks, california would get 10% and attorneys get the rest. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

I am not so sure about that, I think this might be coming from the State Attourny General's office. Anyone know for sure?

[Sarge85]

Didn't this already happen - a few months ago??

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[gabyyyyy]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not so sure about that, I think this might be coming from the State Attourny General's office. Anyone know for sure?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is a class action lawsuit. This suit was brought by private attorneys, not government prosecutors. Basicly this means the case is being handled in civil court, not criminal court.

[ QUOTE ]
said attorney Ira Rothken, one of several attorneys from firms involved in the class-action lawsuit.


[/ QUOTE ]

[cardcounter0]

10 to 1 it gets laughed out of court and never sees the light of day.

Must have been a real slow day chasing ambulances.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
10 to 1 it gets laughed out of court and never sees the light of day.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's been presented in San Francisco Superior Court. Who the hell knows what they are going to do. They don't seem to be overly concerned with logic, reasoning, or the governing laws of California or the US. If you give SF a chance to make a "statement", watch out.

[spacemonkey57]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
10 to 1 it gets laughed out of court and never sees the light of day.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's been presented in San Francisco Superior Court. Who the hell knows what they are going to do. They don't seem to be overly concerned with logic, reasoning, or the governing laws of California or the US. If you give SF a chance to make a "statement", watch out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're talking about the 9th circuit court of appeals. They're the ones that made the ruling on "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance anyway.

God I hate class action suits. Nobody ever makes any money besides the lawyers.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're talking about the 9th circuit court of appeals. They're the ones that made the ruling on "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've gotten by pretty well by just operating under the assumption that every single person in San Fran is insane. Been right more often than wrong. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[cardcounter0]

Really? I just apply it to the whole State of California and really haven't had any problems.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? I just apply it to the whole State of California and really haven't had any problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Why, your just an ignorant state-ist. For shame. Next you'll be telling me Oregon and Utah are insane too.

[cardcounter0]

No, but Utah does have some inbreeding problems.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MicroBob]

in march there was a story on CNN-headline news that Google and Yahoo had both announced at the same time that they were discontinuing online-gambling ads as of March 30 or April 30 or something??

does this mean that they are still accepting gambling for online sites and that the story was wrong??


also - 2+2.com is obviously guilty of aceepting online-gambling advertising also (as are other sites like bonuswhores.com and quite a few others). hopefully they aren't in as much danger as the bigger fish like google and yahoo.
has google's IPO come out yet? i suspect these guys are looking for a big score.

[MS Sunshine]

Hey, that wasn't nice. We have a law here about not being nice.

MS Sunshine

[Luv2DriveTT]

lol! I should read what I post first, eh? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[cardcounter0]

Sue me.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[juris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
10 to 1 it gets laughed out of court and never sees the light of day.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's been presented in San Francisco Superior Court. Who the hell knows what they are going to do. They don't seem to be overly concerned with logic, reasoning, or the governing laws of California or the US. If you give SF a chance to make a "statement", watch out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're talking about the 9th circuit court of appeals. They're the ones that made the ruling on "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance anyway.

God I hate class action suits. Nobody ever makes any money besides the lawyers.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a lawyer, I can tell you it is common knowledge in the litigation field that litigating in California is like litigating in a foreign country. None of the rules that seem to make sense in 49 other states are likely to apply there, and there are serious critiques about the lack of professionalism and civility in California Courts.

Being from the midwest, I was stunned when I was involved in a trial in Los Angeles and every single member of the jury pool acknowledged they had been involved in at LEAST one jury trial in the last year. Are you kidding me?

Do not think this case will go away quickly. I know nothing of the facts but doubt it will go away that fast. I am curious though, who are the class members and when is the certification hearing? That would be fun to get a transcript of for entertainment purposes.

[Gotmilk]

SF likes Google and Yahoo. They aren't likely to be the target of the courts ire.