Possibly OT but very interesting article about law and online gambling

[Howard Treesong]

Link here:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1112778309886

I must say that I intensely dislike plaintiffs' class-action lawyers. The ones described in the article seem to be seeking to pin gambling losses of a plaintiffs' class on Google because Google took advertising dollars from the sites on which the plaintiffs lost their money.

To me, that's just nuts. Nobody forces me to gamble. If I lose money, it's my own damn problem, not somebody else's.

[eastbay]

"The U.S. Department of Justice says that all forms of online gambling are illegal under existing federal laws, primarily the 1961 Wire Act, which prohibits making bets over phone lines."

It does? Who said that?

eastbay

[etgryphon]

It really up for debate.

There was a good article on CardPlayer about this.

The Justice Dept. has said that it is against federal law to play online, but it is an interpretation that has no real legal basis:

Wire Act

The Wire Act is only in reference to Sporting Event or Competition and only if the call is placed through a state where it is prohibited.

The problem that the Justice Dept. has is that case law sides with a literal interpretation of the Wire Act.

Mostly the Justice Dept. is using a very effective scare tactic to prevent online poker instead of trying to figure out a good amiable solution.

They killed the online gaming bill out West (Utah?) because of this scare tactic.

-Gryph

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
"The U.S. Department of Justice says that all forms of online gambling are illegal under existing federal laws, primarily the 1961 Wire Act, which prohibits making bets over phone lines."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how the writer divined Justice's position. But I can make a pretty good guess from the text of the statute, which is here:

[ QUOTE ]
(a) Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing that Justice will argue that the "bets or wagers" in the third and fourth clauses are NOT modified by "any sporting event or contest," and therefore that the act applies to ANY money or credit received as the result of a wager.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing that Justice will argue that the "bets or wagers" in the third and fourth clauses are NOT modified by "any sporting event or contest," and therefore that the act applies to ANY money or credit received as the result of a wager.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's plainly indefensible. It says bets or wagers _on_ sporting events or contests. There's no wiggle room there.

The only wiggle room is that they could easily define poker or really any gambling game as a "contest." Then the question would be is whether "sporting" modifies event or contest, or just event.

I suppose there's a third angle, which is to take the view that poker is a sport. It is on ESPN, after all.

eastbay

[MortalWombat]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose there's a third angle, which is to take the view that poker is a sport. It is on ESPN, after all.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's also on the Travel Channel. So I guess that also makes it... err... a vacation?

[cielo]

What if we made money from an online gambling site we found through google? If the logic of this case holds up, could google demand a portion (or even all of?) our winnings, since thy would be (if the accusations hold up) responsible for us going to the gambling sites?

I also like the use of the term, "shaky slope"

as in the following

"I don't think so," Laffey said. "I think, ultimately, it's kind of a shaky slope to say that search engines are responsible for the choices people make about what to do with their time."


But this stuff really bothers me for some reason, like when the prosecuting lawyer says things like,


"At the heart of the complaint is stopping the advertising of Internet gambling," Kathrein said. "It's really addictive. And it's really bad."

and

"If we could, we would go after the gambling sites themselves,"



I guess my question is, Why do you feel compelled to save everyone from themselves? If I want to blow my paycheck, savings etc. on -EV games and I am not physically huring anyone at all, why must you stop me?



I'll stop now as it dawned on me that I am very likely preaching to the choir here.

cielo

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose there's a third angle, which is to take the view that poker is a sport. It is on ESPN, after all.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's also on the Travel Channel. So I guess that also makes it... err... a vacation?

[/ QUOTE ]

a little roffle there.

[MicroBob]

Just some comments and observations from someone who hasn't even read the linked article:



Yahoo and Google both stopped all advertising for online-gambling sites in Mar/Apr of 2004.
This was covered on CNN, CNN-headline and I'm assuming other wire services. In many of the stories I saw there were some incorrect assumptions made where it was described as 'illegal internet gambling' whereas the legality of it would more accurately be described as being in a somewhat grey-area. FWIW - I did see some stories at the time that it described it as more of a grey-area situation.

IMO - this is why it's SO important that all these stories about online-poker are hitting the papers and electronic media lately that make virtually ZERO reference to the legal issues involved. Stories that make no reference to the potentially illegal aspects of it basically leave the audience (reader or viewer) with the impression that a LOT of people are doing it and that it's perfectly legal.


This helps GREATLY in the overall acceptance of internet-poker (and sports-betting) from those who have no interest in doing it themselves.
Overall acceptance of it significantly hurts the efforts of those pushing so hard to make it illegal.


Heck...the overall acceptance of it has brought about a new wave of TV advertising for sites (using the dot-NET for play-money gimmick) and also has North Dakota trying to legalize it in their state.


many of those who bet sports online or play poker on the internet aren't aware that they are playing at some Costa Rica or Gibraltar based site. They just assume it's all U.S. (they are dealing in american dollars afterall).
You would be amazed at the number of people (including the players themselves) who are completely unaware that these sites are illegal to operate in the U.S.

doesn't matter that the customer-service is from India.
Hell, my bank's customer-service is based out of India. People are used to seeing other countries involved and just think it is outsourcing to save bucks. It doesn't even occur to them that it's ALL based over there because it isn't even ALLOWED over here.



Anyway...back to the ban on internet-gambling advertising on yahoo and google.

this doesn't mean that they won't show up when you do a search for 'online gambling' or 'internet poker' or whatever. It just means that they no longer accept banner advertising (or other links in their 'sponsors' section or whatever it's called) from online-gambling sites.


If the plaintiffs in this/these case/s found the sites through an actual advertisement on google/yahoo then their case is slightly more legitimate I suspect (although I still think it's silly).

If they found the gambling sites just through the search portal (and not through any banner or other advertisements on google/yahoo) then finding google/yahoo at fault for such stuff is roughly the same as finding them at fault for someone who finds a link to a link to a link on how to market child-porn movies originally starting with a google search.


Note - 2+2 and cardplayer.com (and the print magazine) have obviously not been convinced that running ads for real-money gambling sites is so risky (or even illegal) that they need to cease doing it. Nor do I blame them.
They obviously are not as big as yahoo or google (although sometimes it feels like 2+2 is getting there) so the DOJ would be far less likely to come after them then a huge mega-company. And obviously online-gambling advertising accounts for a higher percentage of their revenue than it ever could for google/yahoo.