Easy E
07-10-2003, 05:28 PM
From Prof I. Nelson Rose's article online CardPlayer
" Gambling and the Law
I. Nelson Rose
MasterCard Wins Hollow Victory
(snip)
In the latest decision, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge that, given the facts alleged, MasterCard and Visa could not be sued for allowing their cards to be accepted by Internet casinos. But, the plaintiffs’ lawyers made mistakes that could be fixed.
The case involved numerous class-action lawsuits from around the country. The trial judge ordered the plaintiffs to choose two test cases, to see whether the RICO claim was any good. This meant that potentially millions of players were represented by two typical individuals.
(snip)
The plaintiffs’ lawyers still could have won, if they proved a violation of federal anti-gambling laws. The Wire Act, for example, prohibits gambling businesses from knowingly using an interstate wire to transmit “bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest.” The statute also uses the phrase “bets or wagers” without adding “sporting event.”
The MasterCard decision is important because the Court held that the Wire Act is limited to sports bets. Thus, under federal law, as it is now written, Internet casinos and lotteries are legal."
Should we be celebrating here? Or at least until it gets to the next level of appeals?
" Gambling and the Law
I. Nelson Rose
MasterCard Wins Hollow Victory
(snip)
In the latest decision, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge that, given the facts alleged, MasterCard and Visa could not be sued for allowing their cards to be accepted by Internet casinos. But, the plaintiffs’ lawyers made mistakes that could be fixed.
The case involved numerous class-action lawsuits from around the country. The trial judge ordered the plaintiffs to choose two test cases, to see whether the RICO claim was any good. This meant that potentially millions of players were represented by two typical individuals.
(snip)
The plaintiffs’ lawyers still could have won, if they proved a violation of federal anti-gambling laws. The Wire Act, for example, prohibits gambling businesses from knowingly using an interstate wire to transmit “bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest.” The statute also uses the phrase “bets or wagers” without adding “sporting event.”
The MasterCard decision is important because the Court held that the Wire Act is limited to sports bets. Thus, under federal law, as it is now written, Internet casinos and lotteries are legal."
Should we be celebrating here? Or at least until it gets to the next level of appeals?