Poker News

No Decision Handed Down in Kentucky Internet Gambling Case

The Kentucky Supreme Court failed to hand down a decision on Thursday in the case involving the seizure and potential forfeiture of 141 internet gambling domain names.

The list of sites that could be affected includes PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker. Officials from the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) and others involved in the case had anticipated a Thursday release of the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision. However, none was passed down as the day came and went.

A press release distributed by iMEGA on Thursday added that the next time the case could be addressed is late March. iMEGA Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily what his reaction was to no decision being rendered by the Commonwealth's highest court: “Everyone was surprised in Kentucky. The rumor mill thought the decision was going to be rendered. That could have been why their attorneys acted so quickly at the end of December, so if they got an adverse decision, they could keep it alive.”

No dates for releases of court opinions are listed in February. The next date shown for verdicts to be handed down on the Kentucky Supreme Court's calendar is March 18th. Others include April 22nd, May 20th, June 17th, August 26th, September 23rd, October 21st, November 18th, and December 16th. Twenty pages' worth of decisions were handed down on Thursday in the Frankfort court.

Back in October, oral arguments were heard by the six of the seven justices that comprise the Kentucky Supreme Court. In December, two months after the proceedings occurred, attorneys for the Commonwealth filed a motion to add names to its original complaint. Its counsel explained the reasoning behind identifying more defendants two months after oral arguments transpired: “In the course of the litigation and the Commonwealth’s continuing investigation, the Commonwealth has learned the identity of certain entities and individuals involved in internet gambling operations, some of whom are U.S. citizens.”

The motion called for a hearing in front of Judge Thomas Wingate on January 20th. However, because the motion was never acted on by the Kentucky Supreme Court, no such hearing took place. Wingate upheld the initial seizure order as part of a decision rendered in October 2008. The last-second move by Commonwealth attorneys to add names to the record, to some in the industry, indicated that the Kentucky Supreme Court was readying to hand down a verdict. However, those inclinations ultimately proved to be false.

The case centers on whether domain names, which are housed in the depths of cyberspace, constitute “gambling devices” under Kentucky state law. The two-word phrase traditionally refers to physical objects like roulette wheels and slot machines that you'd find in an underground casino. The domains were allegedly seized without due process back in September 2008. Wingate mandated that the affected sites cease taking customers from Kentucky immediately, else risk losing access to their domain name worldwide.

For now, it appears that the future of domain names like FullTiltPoker.com and PokerStars.com will remain up in the air in the Bluegrass State. Also involved in the case is the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), the industry's 1.2-million member strong lobbying force. The PPA filed an amicus brief to the Kentucky Supreme Court charging that poker is a game of skill and therefore not gambling under state law.

Original estimates pinned a decision in the Kentucky Supreme Court between three and six months after oral arguments took place, or sometime between January and April. Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest on the case.

Internet Gambling Bill Introduced in New Jersey

Legalized internet gambling and online poker may be coming to New Jersey. State Senator Raymond Lesniak introduced S 3167, which specifically legalizes the internet version of popular brick and mortar games like poker, roulette, baccarat, blackjack, craps, the big six wheel, slot machines, mini baccarat, red dog, pai gow, and sic bo.

Servers and monitoring offices for internet gaming companies created under the bill must be located in Atlantic County, New Jersey. The State is charged with protecting consumers under the bill, which explains that a government division would develop “technical standards for approval of software, computers and other gaming equipment used to conduct internet wagering, including mechanical, electrical or program reliability, security against tampering, the comprehensibility of wagering, and noise and light levels, as it may deem necessary to protect the player from fraud or deception and to insure the integrity of gaming.” Online accounts would only be open to players age 21 or older, mirroring the standards of the brick and mortar casino world.

Online poker is mentioned by name several times, mitigating any doubt that the game may not be legal if Lesniak’s bill were enacted into law. Internet gambling outfits would be subject to a 20% tax paid to the state’s casino revenue fund. An additional tax will see a portion of its proceeds go to the New Jersey Racing Commission “to be used for the benefit of the horse racing, including but not limited to the augmentation of purses.”

The act would take effect immediately upon future Governor Chris Christie signing it into law, setting up a model for intrastate online gaming that other jurisdictions could soon mimic. The New Jersey Casino Control Commission would establish a Division of Internet Wagering to oversee operations and licensing. Permit holders would be required to pay an up-front licensing fee of $200,000, with renewals running $100,000. In addition, operators would be required to fork over a $100,000 non-refundable deposit and $100,000 annual fee that would go towards treating compulsive gambling.

The Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) has been one of the leading forces pushing for legislation in New Jersey. Its Chairman, Joe Brennan, commented in a press release distributed by the trade organization, “We’re happy that New Jersey has taken this issue into their own hands. New Jersey is recognized as having the toughest gaming regulators in the U.S., but as a leading gaming state with a long track record of doing things the right way, internet gambling will have a great home here and the opportunity to begin normalizing the industry.”

Legal online wagering on horse racing is available to New Jersey residents on 4NJBets.com. Those placing wagers must be 18 years of age and have completed a form W9 for tax purposes. An automated phone betting system supplements the website, allowing multiple avenues for New Jersey residents to place wagers on their favorite ponies. Popular New Jersey tracks include Monmouth, Meadowlands, and Freehold.

On a national level, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez has introduced S 1597, the Internet Poker and Game of Skill Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. As its name implies, the measure legalizes skill games like online poker in a similar fashion to Congressman Barney Frank’s (D-MA) HR 2267 in the House. S 1597 was introduced in August, but has not yet picked up any co-sponsors. Menendez’s bill defines “skill game” simply as “an Internet-based game in which success is predominantly determined by the skill of the players, including poker, chess, bridge, mah-jong, and backgammon.”

In the meantime, iMEGA anxiously awaits a decision from the Kentucky Supreme Court on the future of 141 internet gambling domain names, including those belonging to PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, that face potential forfeiture. A decision may be handed down as soon as January 21st.

New Defendants in Kentucky Internet Gambling Case Remain Unknown

Following a chain of e-mails sent last week by attorneys for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the names of additional defendants in the state’s legal action against the owners of 141 internet gambling domain names remain a mystery.

In October, the Kentucky Supreme Court heard the case, which pits industry organizations like the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC) against the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, led by Secretary J. Michael Brown. Despite a ruling by the state’s highest judicial body potentially being handed down any day now, Kentucky attorneys filed a motion to add parties to its complaint last week. How the latest filing will affect the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision, if at all, remains unknown. The additional parties in question were U.S. citizens and companies engaged in internet gambling.

When lawyers for iMEGA tried to obtain a list of the additional names, counsel for the Commonwealth turned them down. iMEGA Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily, “They've basically said that they don't recognize our standing. They're just ignoring what happened in the Court of Appeals, which confirmed our standing.” In a chain of e-mails between opposing attorneys available on iMEGA’s website, William Hurt of Kentucky counsel Hurt, Crosbie, and May states, “I do not believe anyone has standing to file a response or motion to strike.”

Brennan lashed out at the State’s attorneys, who are purportedly working on a contingency basis, as part of a press release sent on Monday: “They were counting on a big payday from our members in the form of settlements to get their own property back, but it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. Since they don’t get one nickel from the state to pursue this, it’s clear that the drive for big money has taken over and any sense of fair play or due process has gone out the window.”

The 141 internet gambling domain names in question include those belonging to online poker giants like PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker. If the Commonwealth of Kentucky were successful, these domains would be inaccessible not just in the southern state, but also around the world. The domains were seized back in September of 2008 on the grounds that they constituted “gambling devices,” a term that traditionally refers to tangible objects like slot machines and roulette wheels that you’d find in an underground casino.

In January, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled by a two-to-one margin that the Commonwealth did not have jurisdiction to act, setting up an appeal by the State to its Supreme Court. iMEGA attorney Jon Fleischaker noted in an e-mail, “The Court of Appeals ruled that we had standing in this case, and by implication, a right to intervene. I believe the Supreme Court is likely to rule the same thing.” Hurt retorted that the State would “object to anything that you file, but will nonetheless continue to send you notice.”

Brennan told Poker News Daily that Circuit Court judge Thomas Wingate did not act on the motion to add names filed by Kentucky’s attorneys last week and the next day that it can be considered is January 21st. The motion calls for a hearing on January 20th in front of Judge Wingate, although its future appears to be in doubt. Judge Wingate upheld the State’s actions as part of an October 2008 decision.

The Kentucky Supreme Court has given no indication as to when it will hand down a ruling. As it currently stands, the Kentucky Supreme Court does not have any oral arguments scheduled on its calendar until January 13th. However, Brennan expected a decision from the Kentucky Supreme Court to be issued in January.

Kentucky Attorneys File Motion to Amend Internet Gambling Complaint

In a rather bizarre twist in the Kentucky internet gambling case, Commonwealth attorneys filed a motion on Wednesday to add parties to its case and amend its original complaint. In late October, the Kentucky Supreme Court heard the case.

Now, a hearing is scheduled for January 20th in Frankfort, Kentucky in front of Judge Thomas Wingate, the Circuit Court magistrate who heard the matter originally in late 2008. The case was brought last year against the owners of 141 internet gambling domain names on the grounds that the URLs constituted “gambling devices,” a term typically reserved for tangible items like slot machines, roulette wheels, and dice that you’d find in an underground casino. The Kentucky Supreme Court has not yet issued a ruling in the case.

After reiterating its complaint against the domain name owners, Kentucky’s attorneys explained, “In the course of the litigation and the Commonwealth’s continuing investigation, the Commonwealth has learned the identity of certain entities and individuals involved in internet gambling operations, some of whom are U.S. citizens.” Who this refers to is not yet known, as the Commonwealth has not yet released the names of companies or people to the general public or to counsel for the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA). Also unknown is whether the new targets are Kentucky residents.

The motion also hinted that further litigation could develop down the road: “The Commonwealth contemplates that further amendments will be sought as its investigation and discovery in this litigation continue.” Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Secretary J. Michael Brown heads the case against the domain names in question, which were seized in September of 2008 allegedly without due process. Wingate ruled in favor of the Commonwealth’s actions, prompting iMEGA and several other parties to seek the intervention of the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

In January, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled by a two to one margin that the domain names did not constitute gambling devices and, therefore, the Commonwealth did not have jurisdiction to act. The lone dissenting judge noted that domain names were part of a larger gambling device. It remains to be seen what will occur during the January 20th hearing, which is slated for 9:00am ET. Eric Lycan of Hurt, Crosbie, and May in Lexington, Kentucky sign Wednesday’s letter.

Others involved with the fight for internet gambling in Kentucky besides iMEGA include the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC), Poker Players Alliance (PPA), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet Commerce Association, eBay, and Network Solutions. Original estimates pinned a Kentucky Supreme Court decision within three to six months of the October hearing, although the latest motion filed by Commonwealth attorneys may affect that timeline.

In November, Churchill Downs Incorporated, the parent company of the racetrack of the same name in Louisville, Kentucky, purchased the online horse racing wagering site YouBet.com. A market analyst told Reuters at the time, "Given the combination of Youbet's ADW platform with Churchill Downs-owned TwinSpires, which has been the fastest growing ADW this year, they will have 50 percent of the U.S. market and the best brand in horse racing.” Churchill Downs Incorporated owns TwinSpires.com; the site was not among the 141 internet gambling domain names targeted by Commonwealth attorneys.

YouBet.com is traded on the NASDAQ Stock Exchange under the symbol “UBET,” while Churchill Downs Incorporated can be found on the same exchange under the symbol “CHDN.”

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest developments in the Kentucky internet gambling case.

Poker Industry Reacts to House Financial Services Committee Hearing

On Thursday, the House Financial Services Committee, Chaired by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), hosted a hearing on two internet gambling bills. Twenty-four hours later, the online poker industry has had a chance to respond.

In one portion of Thursday’s hearing, Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) referenced a letter he received from the FBI noting that the integrity of online poker games could be compromised. On the letter sent by Shawn Henry, the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) retorted, “The PPA takes issue with certain representations made by Mr. Henry, but believes that the larger point is the more important one: Mr. Henry’s letter makes a compelling case for licensing and regulation of internet poker as proposed in HR 2267.” Bachus is the Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee and a staunch opponent of internet gambling interests.

Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative (SSIGI) spokesperson Michael Waxman gave Poker News Daily his two cents on the 90-minute long hearing that took place on Thursday morning in one of Congress’ most powerful committees: “The hearing and witness testimony clearly portrayed why Congress should scrap an unrealistic attempt to ban internet gambling and regulate the burgeoning underground marketplace since it is the only effective way to protect consumers.” Witnesses covered the gamut, ranging from the banking industry to problem gambling interests.

Early on in the proceedings, Bachus questioned Frank as to why no representatives from the U.S. Treasury or Federal Reserve were present at the hearing. Frank responded that he had not received any such request. However, the Committee’s Chairman later recanted his statement after producing an e-mail dated 40 hours before the hearing began from Bachus’ staff calling for the Treasury or Fed to be present. The awkward exchange ultimately led to agreement that an additional hearing should take place featuring members of the two government organizations, setting up more debate on the internet gambling issue in 2010. The Treasury and Fed granted a six-month delay in compliance with the regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).

On the proceedings, Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily, “It’s good to see that the ball is rolling again. The trick is going to be if things are sustained beyond the hearing. The industry has this pace of getting a public hearing every six months, but there seems to be little follow-up. Seeing that the minority wanted to hear from the Treasury and Fed, it may be the opposition who keeps the ball rolling.” No hearing has been scheduled, although PPA Executive Director John Pappas expected swift movement to mark up HR 2267.

Bachus’ generalizations about millions of young Americans becoming addicted to online gaming if legalization were to occur rubbed many in the industry the wrong way. On some of the claims made by the high-ranking Alabama Congressman, PocketFives.com poster “RI Tony” commented, “This Bachus guy is a classic example of why I hate politicians. There would be no way to change this guy’s mind. He’s simple minded and arrogant, thinking he can legislate morality. Oh yeah, and like I’m going to play poker on my Blackberry as I’m driving or waiting in line at the supermarket as he suggested people would. Idiot.” Online sites like Cake Poker already offer a mobile client.

Bachus asserted, “If Congress repeals the law, online casinos will proliferate. In the next five years, I feel that if [we] are successful in creating a federal right to gamble on the internet, we will create a generation of millions of Americans who from their youth will be addicted to internet gambling and, therefore, life-long problem gamblers.” Frank labeled Bachus’ comments “hyperbole” and “based on no factual basis whatsoever.”

In June of 2008 during a separate committee hearing, Bachus relayed a study from McGill University claiming that one-third of college students who gambled on the internet attempted suicide. In fact, no such study had ever taken place. A representative for the university quipped, “I am confident the Congressman doesn’t read research – he could not misinterpret this.”

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest from Capitol Hill.

UIGEA Regulations Officially Delayed Six Months

Online poker players in the United States have a lot to be thankful for this holiday season. On Friday, CNBC and the Associated Press confirmed that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had granted requests to delay the mandatory compliance date of the regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) by six months to June 1st, 2010.

Word of a potential delay first broke on Wednesday from Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) Executive Director Joe Brennan. However, no official comment had been handed down from Geithner, Bernanke, the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), or the office of Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA). Around 12:15pm ET on Friday, cable station CNBC ran a segment touting the successful six-month delay and an Associated Press article had hit cyberspace 15 minutes earlier.

The six-month delay will take the internet gambling industry to June 1st, 2010. In the interim, the theory goes that sensible legislation governing the industry in the United States will be passed. Frank introduced HR 2267 back in May. The bill, which has attracted 63 co-sponsors, establishes a full licensing and regulatory framework for online gaming outfits to solicit U.S. customers.

An Associated Press article sourced both the Treasury and Federal Reserve as saying that the UIGEA’s regulations would indeed be pushed off until mid-2010. The news service explained, “The delayed rules would curb online gambling by prohibiting financial institutions from accepting payments from credit cards, checks or electronic fund transfers to settle online wagers. The financial industry complained that the new rules would be difficult to enforce because they did not offer a clear definition of what constitutes internet gambling.” Since the UIGEA was approved in 2006, a Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling stated that the legality of internet gambling may depend on state law, similar to the way that the brick-and-mortar version is governed.

Next Thursday, December 3rd, the House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing discussing the merits of HR 2266 and HR 2267. The former bill delays mandatory industry compliance with the UIGEA regulations by one year to December 1st, 2010. Its relevance given Friday’s confirmation that the regulations would be pushed back six months is up in the air. The hearing kicks off at 10:00am ET in Room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Witnesses for the informational hearing have not yet been announced and the proceedings can be followed via a live webcast accessible from the Committee’s website.

Potential overblocking by credit card companies like Visa and MasterCard led the PPA, two horse racing organizations, and members of Kentucky’s Congressional delegation to petition Geithner and Bernanke, urging that the regulations of the UIGEA be shuttled back to December 1st of next year. PPA Executive Director John Pappas told Poker News Daily, “Many believe what you’ll see is overblocking of legitimate transactions. It’s not a good thing for players. It won’t just affect poker; it’ll affect horse racing, lotteries, and other online entities.”

Around 1:00pm ET, the PPA confirmed the news. The organization’s Chairman, Alfonse D’Amato, commented in a press release, “The PPA is extremely pleased with the decision by the Federal Reserve and Treasury to grant the six month extension. This is a great victory for poker, but an even greater victory for advocates of good and fair public policy.”

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest news and events from Capitol Hill.

UIGEA regulations postponed by six months

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act has been delayed six months from December 1 until June 2010, says Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) Chairman Joe Brennan.

Report: UIGEA Regulations Postponed Six Months

The regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) have been delayed six months from December 1st, according to Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) Chairman Joe Brennan.

Neither U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner nor Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had made any official comment regarding a six-month delay at press time. The two government officials received petitions to stay the UIGEA’s regulations by one year in letters filed by the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), National Thoroughbred Racing Association, the American Greyhound Track Operators Association, and members of Kentucky’s Congressional delegation. Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) asked the two officials to uphold the original December 1st industry compliance deadline in a dissenting opinion.

The news comes one week ahead of a hearing in the House Financial Services Committee regarding two internet gambling bills introduced by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) in May that would alter the landscape of the industry in the United States. The first, HR 2266, would have postponed the regulations of the UIGEA by one year to December 1st, 2010. Its viability given today’s news of a likely six-month postponement is up in the air. The measure had attracted 53 co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle.

HR 2267, claiming 63 co-sponsors, creates a full licensing and regulatory framework for the internet gambling industry in the United States. It marks Frank’s latest attempt to undo the UIGEA, which was passed in 2006 after being attached to an unrelated port security measure at the prompting of then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN). In the Senate, the SAFE Port Act was passed by unanimous consent.

On the hearing next week, which will be held at 10:00am ET in Room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building on Thursday, Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative spokesperson Michael Waxman told Poker News Daily, “Chairman Frank is clearly indicating his commitment to switch the government’s position on Internet gambling, replacing attempts to prohibit the activity with a regulatory framework where consumers are protected. Chairman Frank’s commitment is further reinforced by scheduling this hearing and taking up this issue on the heals of the push for financial industry reform, which has been the committee’s exclusive focus the last six months.”

The six-month window will take the internet gambling industry to June 1st, right before election season in the United States in 2010. While issues like health care and a sagging economy have taken center stage since late 2008, internet gambling may finally see its day in the sun. Brennan explained his thoughts on the breaking news: “It’s encouraging that you’ve had this stay on the compliance, but it’s unfortunate that it took this long. We should all hope that in the next six months, a bill that already has 63 co-sponsors can be heard.”

To be clear, no official comment from the Treasury or Federal Reserve was available at the time of writing. With December 1st occurring next Tuesday, a stay likely had to be granted today or Monday, November 30th given the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States. Word breaking on Black Friday was also a possibility.

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest on this developing story.

No Markup Planned for December 3rd Internet Gambling Hearing

On Tuesday night, it was revealed that a hearing will occur next Thursday, December 3rd in the House Financial Services Committee. Taking center stage are two bills related to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).

Poker Players Alliance (PPA) Executive Director John Pappas told Poker News Daily that no markup will occur at the hearing, which will be purely informational in nature: “It’s just an informational hearing. I don’t think the witnesses have been set yet and we’ve been in touch with the Committee about that. The PPA has been building the groundwork for this hearing for some time now. We look forward to it.” A representative from the House Financial Services Committee confirmed that no markup will occur. The hearing will take place in Room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building at 10:00am ET.

Depending upon the outcome of the internet gambling hearing next Thursday, either HR 2266 or HR 2267 could be scheduled for markup, potentially within a week. Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced both bills back in May. HR 2266 delays mandatory financial services industry compliance with the regulations of the UIGEA by one year to December 1st, 2010. It has attracted 53 co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle and is dubbed the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act. As it stands now, the financial services industry must fall into line with the UIGEA by Tuesday, December 1st.

When asked if the December 1st compliance date passing makes HR 2266 moot, Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative (SSIGI) spokesperson Michael Waxman told Poker News Daily, “It could be unless Frank decides that the financial services sector needs a reprieve. Many companies have already expressed concern that the implementation of the law will be burdensome. I believe we’ll hear back from them again as they are forced to abide by the rules.”

HR 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, establishes a full licensing and regulatory framework for the internet gambling industry in the United States. It boasts 63 co-sponsors and, when coupled with a tax bill introduced by Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), could bring in as much as $42 billion over a 10-year period, according to a study by the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Many in the industry have pondered the status of the internet gambling and online poker industries in the United States after December 1st. Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily, “Poker players are going to have to get used to the kind of speed of deposit and withdrawal that online sports betters have had to get used to. To my knowledge, all of the top sports books have moved their processing offshore. I don’t expect there to be the wealth of electronic transfer methods and you’re probably going to see an increased use of checks drawn on international banks.”

One possible outcome in the post-December 1st internet gambling industry is overblocking by credit card companies like Visa and MasterCard. The 12-letter term began popping up earlier this year, when legal online lottery purchases in North Dakota and New Hampshire were denied. In essence, credit card companies could disallow any transaction that appears to look remotely like internet gambling in an effort to comply with the 2006 law. Overblocking also led several members of the Kentucky Congressional delegation to petition U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner seeking the delay of UIGEA regulation enforcement. The group fears that legal online wagering on horseracing could come to a screeching halt as a result.

The PPA, National Thoroughbred Racing Association, and the American Greyhound Track Operators Association issued a letter to Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke seeking delay of the UIGEA’s regulations. As of the time of writing, the request had not yet been acted on.

Stay tuned for the latest from Capitol Hill right here on Poker News Daily.

Poland Limits Gambling, Poker to Brick and Mortar Casinos

Poland’s Senate approved a measure limiting gambling to casinos, stunting access to poker and other games outside of a structured establishment. The bill cleared the Senate by a 48 to 3 margin, with 30 lawmakers not voting.

The Krakow Post noted that the new crackdown on gambling outside of licensed casinos may also spell trouble for internet gambling and online poker: “The legislation also affects Internet gambling, which will no longer be allowed under Polish law. However, the enforcement of this aspect of the bill will inevitably prove much more difficult than even the removal of thousands of slot machines.” Around 50,000 slot machines, which can be found in places like bars and restaurants around the country, will be removed as a result of the new law.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski must still apply his John Hancock to the piece of legislation in order for it to become official. The Post quoted Poland’s Prime Minister as saying that he expects Kaczynski to sign by the end of the month. In addition to ridding the European country of 50,000 slot machines and potentially slowing the growth of internet gambling, the bill passed by Polish lawmakers also sets a legal gambling age of 18.

The Agence France Presse, or AFP news service, shed some light into this month’s vote: “The decision by parliament comes nearly a month and a half after [Prime Minister] Tusk was forced to sack several key ministers and political allies over allegations of influence peddling within his cabinet regarding the gambling legislation.” World Bulletin explained what a portion of the funds raised will be used for: “Tusk has said the restrictions will prevent young people from becoming addicted to gambling. The government will funnel tax revenues raised under the bill into foundations promoting physical education and culture.”

No general election is scheduled in Poland until 2011 and the scandal in question involved casino owners. The new bill also increases the tax rate on casinos, helping raise additional money for Poland’s government. On the TwoPlusTwo forums, a translated article that originally appeared on Bankier.pl revealed that the tax rate on tournament poker would also increase as part of the new measure, although this component was not reported by the AFP or World Bulletin. TwoPlusTwo poster “novahunterpa” commented, “Looks like every country is either trying to ban online poker and gambling or restrict it to state monopolies.”

One month ago, Poland saw the invasion of the PokerStars-sponsored European Poker Tour (EPT), which made its annual stop in Warsaw. The 25,000 PLN buy-in event was held at the Casinos Poland Hyatt Regency and French businessman Christophe Benzimra emerged victorious from the 203 player field. The online poker site claimed that EPT Warsaw was one of the largest poker tournaments ever held in Poland. No indication has been given as to whether the new law will affect the EPT’s Season 7 Warsaw stop.

Among those keeping a watchful eye on the situation in the European country was Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) Chairman Joe Brennan, who told Poker News Daily, “The genie is out of the bottle when it comes to online gambling. Whether it’s restricting it for consumer protection or guaranteeing the franchise for Poland’s brick and mortar casinos, the fact is that the Polish people have already voted with their feet, their wallets, and their computers by seeking out online gambling. Poland is going to have a hard time putting the genie back in the bottle, as would any country.”

Notable poker personalities hailing from Poland include Poker Hall of Fame member Henry Orenstein, a WSOP bracelet winner who also invented the hole card camera. Orenstein was born in Hrubieszów and currently lives in the United States. Michael Gracz was born in Warsaw and, like Orenstein, now calls the USA home.

Kentucky Cabinet Secretary Discusses Internet Gambling Battle

One month ago, the Kentucky Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that pits the state’s Justice and Public Safety Cabinet against the owners of 141 internet gambling domain names, including those belonging to industry titans like PokerStars and Fill Tilt Poker.

Heading the Cabinet is J. Michael Brown, who was present during oral arguments in the Frankfort courtroom and brought the legal action against the domain names in question one year ago. Brown told Poker News Daily that nothing discussed during the October 22nd hearing caught him off-guard. He added, “In discussing some of the procedural background, members of the court touched on some of the underlying issues, everything from whether a domain name is a device and how a device is defined to what measures the Commonwealth can employ to defend itself against unregulated internet gambling.”

Representing the internet gambling sites were a consortium of lawyers, including those from the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA), the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC), and several of the targeted sites. Despite the large presence of trade organizations during the proceedings, Brown and company questioned why no domain owners had come forth to defend themselves. The Secretary told Poker News Daily, “Who were the stakeholders on the other side? There didn’t seem to be anyone standing up saying that they represent these innocent owners. Their arguments were all over the map, from the First Amendment to likening it to a criminal proceeding. I was pleased that the court spent time looking at the underlying issues.”

Many in the industry have cautioned that the outcome of the Kentucky internet gambling case may set a precedent worldwide. More light could be shed on where domain names are located and who has rights to seize or regulate them as a result of the seven-member Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision. On the global implications of the Commonwealth’s actions, Brown frankly stated, “I’m only focusing on Kentucky. Our interest is in the unregulated gambling that we believe has been going on. I don’t know that our Supreme Court is ready to look at it as a worldwide precedent because a lot of the underlying facts haven’t been completely developed.”

Influencing the Commonwealth is the presence of a booming horse racing industry in Kentucky, headlined every May by the running of the Kentucky Derby. The spectacle, which unfolds from Churchill Downs in Louisville, generates a considerable amount of revenue for the State, bringing in high rollers, celebrities, politicians, and horse racing fans from around the globe.

The 141 internet gambling domain names are owned by companies located in places like Costa Rica, Gibraltar, Canada, and Isle of Man. Brown explained, “You have people who own and operate domain names. In order to regulate them, you have to go to the registrars because the actual owners are all offshore.” Registrars include giants like GoDaddy.com, which features Team PokerStars Pro member Vanessa Rousso as one if its spokesmen.

When the Kentucky Supreme Court will hand down a decision in the case is not yet known. Joe Brennan, Chairman of iMEGA, told Poker News Daily that he would set an over/under of March, 2010. Rich Muny, Kentucky State Director for the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), contrastingly, expected a decision to be rendered by Christmas.

The 141 internet gambling domain names were seized in September of 2008 on the grounds that they were illegal “gambling devices,” a term that traditionally refers to tangible objects like slot machines and roulette wheels that you’d find in an underground casino. Judge Thomas Wingate upheld the Commonwealth’s actions one month later before the industry sought the intervention of the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The judicial body ruled against the State by a two-to-one margin in January, setting up October’s showdown in the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest from the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Internet Gambling Revenue Analysis Released by Joint Committee on Taxation

Today, Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) released a study by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) revealing that up to $41 billion could be generated by regulating and taxing the internet gambling industry over a 10-year period.

This is one of several studies to be released by various outfits, but is the first to be handed down by an agency of the United States Government. On the importance of the JCT’s findings, McDermott commented in a press release distributed on Thursday, “I suspect that many of my colleagues… will take more interest in this issue once they see $41 billion available that they can match up with any number of worthy programs.” Being debated on Capitol Hill is major health care reform, one social program that could conceivably be funded through internet gambling.

McDermott continued, “I would suspect it’s only a matter of time before Congress appropriately moves to regulate the industry in order to protect consumers and reverse the flow of billions of dollars currently lost offshore as Americans gamble billions online despite attempts to prohibit the activity.” In May, the Washington Congressman unveiled HR 2268, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act. The measure imposes a fee of 2% of deposits on licensed internet gambling operators.

HR 2268 is a companion bill to Congressman Barney Frank’s HR 2267, which establishes a comprehensive framework for companies to solicit U.S. customers. The two bills were introduced on the same day and HR 2267 is up to 62 cosponsors on both sides of the political spectrum. Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative (SSIGI) spokesperson Michael Waxman told Poker News Daily, “This is a very significant development in support of the push to regulate the industry. We would expect that there will be more conversation and more interest in internet gambling regulations as Congress is attempting to figure out funding for health care and other various programs.”

Today, Democrats in Congress unleashed health care reform that comes with a price tag of nearly $900 billion. While not able to cover the full amount, legalizing internet gambling could, in theory, put a dent in the price tag. The JCT’s analysis does not include online sports betting, which is barred in Frank’s legislation. Moreover, the findings assume that states will not opt out of HR 2267. A February study by the U.S.-based firm PricewaterhouseCoopers revealed that up to $52 billion could be raised by taxing internet gambling companies over a 10-year period.

On the significance of a $4 billion per year revenue stream when programs like health care run over 200 times that total, Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) Chairman Joe Brennan explained, “It’s realistic to see it packaged with a number of revenue enhancers. As a standalone, in my opinion, it’s not enough money to be able to get people off the mark who have been against this in the near-term.”

Information released today by the SSIGI noted that Frank planned to hold a markup hearing on HR 2267, but the House Financial Services Committee has released no official information. For the balance of the week, Frank’s committee will be bogged down in discussion of systematic regulation, overdraft protection, and investor protection. The grizzly state of the U.S. economy has been the committee’s main focus since September of 2008.

Frank has also introduced HR 2266, the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act. The measure delays industry compliance with the regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) by one year. As it stands, the financial services industry in the United States must come into full compliance with the 2006 law by December 1st, which is just five weeks away. The Poker Players Alliance (PPA), the industry’s main lobbying force, has been working feverishly to delay the deadline through other means, including appealing directly to U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The JCT study assumes that wagering taxes will be levied and that HR 2267 will be amended so that internet gambling companies doing business in the United States must also be incorporated in the United States. Read the full internet gambling study.

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest news from Capitol Hill.

Anurag Dikshit’s Sale of Party Gaming Stock Receives Mixed Reaction

One of the major poker headlines this week was the news that Party Gaming Cofounder Anurag Dikshit would divest himself of nearly 114 million shares of the company’s stock, which is traded in London under the symbol “PRTY.” Now, the industry has had a chance to react.

The internet gambling think tank sported mixed reactions to the news, as Dikshit’s departure meant that a man who admitted to violating U.S. law in a New York courtroom one year ago would no longer hold any interest in the company. Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily, “The thing to take away is that this is probably good overall for Party Gaming. When you have one of their founders pleading guilty, if and when things start to get normalized in the U.S. and Party Gaming comes into the market, they need to clear it off the books. The fact that he’s exiting the company is good for its future.”

When internet gambling will be legalized and regulated in the United States is anyone’s guess. Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced HR 2267 in May as one solution. The bill outlines a framework for the explicit legalization of the industry and, although the measure is up to 62 cosponsors, it has not yet been scheduled for markup in the House Financial Services Committee.

On how members of Congress and others outside of the industry would react to Dikshit’s exit, Brennan explained, “If Dikshit leaving Party Gaming can be a benefit to that company, I would say that it does the same broadly for the industry.” Financial analyst Nick Batram told Bloomberg that Dikshit’s departure meant that Party Gaming “may also find it easier to raise funds from institutional investors rather than the founders for large sports gambling acquisitions.” The Wire Act of 1961 has historically been interpreted to mean that online wagering on sports is not permitted in the U.S.

Dikshit will purportedly turn over the proceeds of his sale, which will likely total more than ?188 million, to his charitable foundation. On the TwoPlusTwo online poker forums, posters questioned Dikshit’s charitable motives: “If he donated to an established charity that could not be mistaken for a front, then that would be impressive,” one skeptic noted. Some have speculated that tax benefits are the real reason behind his actions. Brennan told Poker News Daily, “He wants to get out of the business and focus on his charitable endeavors.”

The sale of two-thirds of Dikshit’s stake sent shares of Party Gaming plummeting. Trading above 284 pence on October 19th, the stock dove to 240 pence in 24 hours, a dip of 15%. PRTY closed trading on Friday on the London Stock Exchange fetching 243 pence, 135 pence above its asking price one year ago.

An article in the Financial Times summed up the reaction from most of the industry: “The truth, however, is that while the distancing of Mr Dikshit can’t be bad for Party Gaming, it is still frustratingly unclear what the odds are on a successful return to the U.S. market.” In five weeks, the financial services industry in the United States must fall into full compliance with the regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). The impact of the December 1st deadline remains to be seen, but the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) recently authored a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asking for the UIGEA’s regulations to be delayed by one year.

Party Gaming Cofounders Ruth Parasol and Russ DeLeon, a husband and wife team, have not yet announced their intentions to sell stock or formulate a plea agreement with the U.S. Government.

Full Tilt Poker Victorious in Clonie Gowen and Domain Name Cases

The phrases “Full Tilt Poker” and “lawsuit” seem to go hand in hand these days, but the online poker room’s latest legal news is wholly positive for the site.  Two recent court decisions, one out of England and the other out of Nevada, both ruled in Full Tilt’s favor and, though the site received no monetary compensation, it brought some of its ongoing legal matters to a conclusion.

The suit brought against Full Tilt by former sponsored pro Clonie Gowen was dismissed for a second time last week.  The decision issued by U.S. District Court Judge Robert C Jones said that Gowen’s claim of unjust enrichment was an “indistinct cause of action” and denied Gowen’s motion to reconsider the order.  Jones granted Gowen’s motion to amend her claim a third and final time and submit it to the court within the next 15 days.

Gowen filed suit against Full Tilt almost a year ago alleging that the company failed to compensate her adequately for her work promoting the site at live and televised events since 2004.  According to Gowen, Full Tilt bigwigs told her that she would receive a 1% stake in the company, which her attorneys estimated to be worth $40 million.  The suit was brought against numerous companies affiliated with the site, including Tiltware Inc. and Pocket Kings Ltd., and also named each of the members of Team Full Tilt.

The suit was originally dismissed in May, but Gowen was allowed to re-file her claim against Raymond Bitar, Howard Lederer, and Tiltware.  This week’s dismissal was a response to that re-filing and, although Gowen is allowed to argue her case one more time, it seems unlikely that the suit will go her way.

Full Tilt received a ruling in another piece of pending litigation as well.  Pocket Kings, a software company that works closely with Full Tilt, filed a motion in a British court against the Commonwealth of Kentucky following the State’s attempt to seize a number of domain names connected with online gambling companies.  Pocket Kings filed the claim because the company that controls its domain name, SafeNames, was instructed by the Commonwealth to relinquish control of the URL fulltiltpoker.com, which would violate its contractual agreement with Pocket Kings.

Michael Furness, Deputy Judge of the High Court who heard the case, ruled in Pocket Kings’ favor, saying that Kentucky could not act as its own sovereign state and, as such, the seizure was unenforceable on British soil. According to Furness’ written decision on the case, Kentucky has made no attempt to seize Full Tilt’s domain name other than issuing SafeNames its initial seizure order.

The aforementioned domain name seizures were debated on the floor of the Kentucky Supreme Court on Thursday and the panel of seven judges is expected to issue a decision within four months.  The Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) fought Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear’s attempt to seize the domain names and argued on behalf of online gaming companies.

The Commonwealth failed to send anyone to represent their interest in the case, but a series of e-mails between the law firm Hurt Crosbie and May and Pocket Kings discussing the possible adjournment of the hearings confirmed that the State was aware of the proceedings, but chose not to attend.

In the end, Furness ruled in favor of Pocket Kings and declared that the Kentucky seizure was unenforceable.  In turn, SafeNames agreed to refrain from enforcing the order and Full Tilt will retain its domain name for the foreseeable future.

Poker Industry Reacts to Kentucky Internet Gambling Hearing

On Thursday, attorneys representing the owners of 141 internet gambling domain names took to the floor of the Kentucky Supreme Court. Their goal: prevent the forfeiture of URLs belonging to industry giants like PokerStars, Ultimate Bet, and Full Tilt Poker.

Twenty-four hours later, the online poker industry has had an opportunity to digest the proceedings, which played out in Frankfort. Among those looking on via a live webcast of the 90-minute oral arguments was Poker Players Alliance (PPA) Executive Director John Pappas, who told Poker News Daily from Washington, D.C., “Aside from wishing I could be down there, I think the presentation of the prosecution was extremely weak and there were a lot of holes in it in that the Supreme Court justices pointed out. The attorneys for the side of the online sites did a very good job of presenting compelling, reasonable reasons for dismissing this case.”

Word of the seizure broke last September and sent shockwaves throughout the internet gambling industry. If successful, the action by the Commonwealth would render the 141 domain names inaccessible not just in Kentucky, but also worldwide. Interactive Gaming Council (IGC) attorney Ian Ramsey told Poker News Daily, “We felt very good about the arguments we presented. We felt we had the opportunity to present the material issues for this court to consider and welcome a well-reasoned decision.” When the Kentucky Supreme Court will hand down a decision is anyone’s guess; timelines have ranged from 60 days to four months.

Present in the courtroom on Thursday with Ramsey was PPA Kentucky State Director Rich Muny, who has been intricately involved at the local level in the case. Muny took time out from lunch shortly after the hearing and noted, “I thought it went really well. The justices heard from both sides and asked informed questions of everyone. We had great legal counsel in the case and it seemed like questions were targeted more at the Commonwealth than at us, which may indicate which way they’re leaning. It would be worse if we got peppered with difficult questions.” Ramsey added that the six justices present asked considerably more questions than they have in past hearings.

Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) counsel Jon Fleischaker was the third attorney to take to the podium on Thursday. His animated testimony seemed to speak volumes about the frustrated nature of the industry, which has several of its most well-known domain names at risk. iMEGA Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily, “John brought the passion today that a lot of people in the industry have felt. This is something that’s just plain wrong and it was great to see that today in court.” Fleischaker called the prosecution’s arguments “unheard of” and “wrong.”

On whether anything in Thursday’s hearing took Brennan and company by surprise, the iMEGA executive commented, “I thought everything went according to plan. We knew the cards that the Governor and the Secretary’s attorneys had with their briefs. They came out of the gate with a weak hand. They continue to make assertions and misrepresent the law and the status of internet gambling.”

In the process, Commonwealth attorney Eric Lycan labeled iMEGA and the IGC “illegal gambling trade associations.” Lycan added that the confiscated domain names would be put up for public auction, following similar action undertaken in the past by the IRS.

A two-to-one ruling by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in January in favor of the internet gambling industry prompted the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet to appeal.

Kentucky Supreme Court Hears iMEGA Internet Gambling Case

Playing out on the floor of the Kentucky Supreme Court this morning were oral arguments in a case pitting the state’s Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, headed by J. Michael Brown, against the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA), among other parties.

The hearing will determine the fate of 141 internet gambling domain names, including those belonging to industry giants like PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker. Commonwealth attorney Eric Lycan took to the podium shortly after 11:00am local time and noted that the lower court ruling ordering the sites in question to halt operations in Kentucky or risk losing their domains altogether has yet to bear fruit: “None of these domain names has been stopped from operating… When this action was filed, many of them attempted to take their domain names registered with registrars in the U.S. and transfer them to another overseas registrar.”

Lengthy comparisons were made to drug seizures and pornography throughout the proceedings. In terms of whether iMEGA and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC) had standing to sue in the case, Lycan explained, “There is not a single person in this room who will claim to operate a domain name. You have illegal gambling trade associations.” One of the six justices in attendance retorted, “This is not like cocaine, which is inherently illegal.” The Kentucky Supreme Court grilled both sides with questions.

If successful, the domains would be inaccessible not only in Kentucky, but also around the world. On why the Commonwealth would remove access to the URLs for the rest of the world, Lycan explained, “That’s how Judge Wingate’s order was tailored and it’s only if they refuse to cease operations in Kentucky. It’s only those who continue to defy the Commonwealth that will be forfeited.” Lycan revealed that the domains would be put up for public auction if they were successfully forfeited.

Up for debate is whether the domain names were properly seized under the grounds that they were “gambling devices,” a term traditionally reserved for tangible objects like slot machines and roulette wheels that you’d find in an underground casino. Also argued were whether due process was violated and whether the Commonwealth had jurisdiction to act in the first place. Lycan noted that there have been instances of URLs being seized before: “They have been seized by the IRS and auctioned off. This is not a new thing that the Commonwealth has undertaken. It’s complicated by the fact that it’s not tangible property, but it’s still property.”

Lycan’s testimony lasted for 30 minutes and was followed by Bill Johnson’s oral arguments. Johnson, who represents a contingent that includes Sportsbook.com, argued that the case should not have proceeded as far as it has. He then noted that the State should have pursued a criminal case against domain name owners, not a “hybrid” civil forfeiture proceeding. Johnson also called out the Kentucky State Legislature for not clarifying the Commonwealth’s gambling laws: “Sometimes it’s necessary for the legislature to spell out what the law is. If the legislature had amended the statute, which it’s had the opportunity to do since 1974… our situation would be different.” Legal online wagering on horse racing appears to be legal in Kentucky, as TwinSpires.com, which allows such bets, is owned by the parent company of the Churchill Downs racetrack.

Jon Fleischaker, attorney for iMEGA, gave an animated argument that began with the following statement: “What the Commonwealth and what the Secretary are doing is really unheard of. They have taken a statute that has been repealed… and have tried to make it a hybrid with a criminal process for forfeiture. That is really wrong.” Fleischaker also blasted the State’s lack of due process, noting, “There has been no process. There has been no attempt at process. It was a secret proceeding. Nobody had standing at the proceedings in front of Judge Wingate.” Word spread of the seizure last September and Wingate upheld the Commonwealth’s actions in a decision released nearly one year ago to the day.

Finally, John Tate, attorney for VicsBingo.com and the IGC, asserted that the Commonwealth’s actions violated the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. He explained, “The internet did not arrive yesterday. We’ve wrestled with internet-based jurisdiction for some number of years now… The only jurisdictional bases for the assertion of in rem were manufactured by the Secretary.” Tate argued that the Commonwealth’s agents had to use an internet search to find VicsBingo.com, which should be frowned upon. Lycan countered that the appellate admitted 13,000 online poker players made their home in Kentucky as members of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA).

The proceedings lasted about 90 minutes and iMEGA expects a decision to be handed down within four months. Rich Muny, Kentucky State Director for the PPA, said the organization, which filed an amicus brief in the case, thought a decision would be rendered within 60 days.

Internet Gambling Proponents Prepare for Kentucky Supreme Court Hearing

On Thursday, lawyers from the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) will lead a contingent into Frankfort, Kentucky in a case involving the seizure and potential forfeiture of 141 internet gambling domain names. Among those prepping is Ian Ramsey from Stites and Harbison, local counsel for the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC).

Oral arguments in the case will begin at 11:00am local time. The case is the final one on the docket for the week, leaving many in the industry speculating that the proceedings could last for longer than the scheduled 15 minutes per side. Ramsey told Poker News Daily what he’s expecting to unfold: “I expect that we’re going to have a lot of questions from the bench. The parties have raised many issues and the Supreme Court is going to have to sort through them.”

Among those factors that will contribute to the Supreme Court’s decision is whether the Commonwealth of Kentucky had jurisdiction to seize the domain names on the grounds that they were “gambling devices” and whether the State bringing a criminal gambling charge to a civil forfeiture hearing will hold weight. On the question of jurisdiction, Ramsey cited a ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court on October 16th, which the IGC submitted as supplemental authority in its Kentucky case. The Arizona legal battle ended with the state’s highest judicial body ruling, “However noble the State’s purpose is, in rem jurisdiction requires presence of the subject property in the state.”

The question remains as to where a domain name is located. Is it located on a bettor’s computer? Is it located on a server? Is it located overseas where the internet gambling site is based? Is it located somewhere in cyberspace? The Commonwealth of Kentucky, under the direction of Governor Steve Beshear and Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Secretary J. Michael Brown, charged that domain names were “gambling devices,” a term typically reserved for objects like roulette wheels and slot machines that you’d find in an underground casino.

Ramsey explained the far-reaching impact of the case, which has garnered worldwide attention: “The citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky are interested, the citizens of the United States are interested, and anyone around the world on the internet is interested in this case. We look forward to a well-reasoned, thoughtful opinion by our Supreme Court.” In January, the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Louisville ruled by a two to one margin that the State did not have jurisdiction to act. The lone dissenting opinion noted that the domain names were part of a larger gambling device.

The URLs in jeopardy belong to some of the behemoths of the industry like PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and Ultimate Bet. Full Tilt Poker sought a backup plan by purchasing FullTilt.com last September, shortly after word broke that FullTiltPoker.com was among those domain names seized. Poker News Daily also learned that Ultimate Bet and Absolute Poker, both members of the USA-friendly CEREUS Network, had contingency plans in the event that their primary domain names were held hostage. If successful, the 141 domain names under fire would be unavailable not only in Kentucky, but also around the world.

Besides iMEGA and IGC, other organizations involved in the legal squabble include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Electronic Frontier Foundation, eBay, Network Solutions, the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), and the Center for Democracy and Technology. In its amicus brief, the PPA argued that its one million members will suffer “immediate and irreparable harm” if the domain names are inaccessible and that poker is a game of skill and therefore not illegal gambling.

iMEGA Readies for Kentucky Supreme Court Internet Gambling Hearing

In one week, attorneys for the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) will take to the floor of the Kentucky Supreme Court to argue why the Commonwealth did not have jurisdiction to seize 141 internet gambling domain names, including those belonging to PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker.

Next Thursday marks an important day for the internet gambling industry in Kentucky and around the world. One year ago, the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, under the leadership of J. Michael Brown and the direction of Governor Steve Beshear, seized domain names belonging to some of the online poker industry’s giants. Arguments are scheduled for 11:00am on Thursday, October 22nd. Each side has 15 minutes to state its case and the proceedings are the final order of business on the docket for next week, leading iMEGA officials to believe that arguments may run longer than the scheduled time.

iMEGA Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily, “Since there’s no law as to how to approach this, the Governor and his attorneys went out and came up with a process on their own. They never named who was being served and basically asked people to come to court and identify themselves.” A total of 141 internet gambling domain names were seized under the grounds that they were “gambling devices,” a term that commonly refers to roulette wheels, dice, and other tangible items found in an underground casino.

In January, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled by a 2:1 margin that the Commonwealth did not have jurisdiction to act, while the lone dissenting judge argued that a domain name was part of a larger “gambling device.” Brennan explained, “Appellate Courts tend to take a conservative, narrow, statutory look. The gambling device statute is one thing, but there is ample case law regarding due process. I am absolutely certain that you’re going to see the Governor’s attorneys get up and talk about what crooked operators we’re dealing with.”

The trade organization argues that the Commonwealth violated due process by seizing the 141 domain names in question. Its brief to the Kentucky Supreme Court explains, “No real defendants were named, no process was issued, and no owner of any domain names was notified. In short, this was an action by the Commonwealth to seize property without the slightest pretext of complying with the fundamental dictates of due process.” Judge Thomas Wingate upheld the Commonwealth’s actions in a court ruling submitted last October.

Kentucky law describes a “gambling device” as “a machine or mechanical device… designed and manufactured primarily for use in conjunction with gambling.” iMEGA added in its brief that if Kentucky does not wish to permit internet gambling within its borders, then it should pass laws through the General Assembly. Brennan expects a decision by the Kentucky Supreme Court to be handed down in “a matter of months” following Thursday’s hearing, which will take place in Frankfort. A diverse group of organizations have submitted amicus briefs, including the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet Commerce Association, eBay, and Network Solutions.

iMEGA is fresh off a mostly positive ruling in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which clarified the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) by noting that internet gambling’s legality depends on the laws of individual states. iMEGA claims that legal internet gambling is possible in 44 states, while its brief to the Kentucky Supreme Court explains that eight criminalize the industry to some degree: Illinois, Indiana, Washington, Louisiana, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, and South Dakota.

The Third Circuit disagreed with iMEGA’s assertions that the UIGEA trampled on First Amendment and privacy rights and dismissed the notion that it should be void for vagueness. Neither the Federal Government nor the trade organization has announced an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We’ll have a full recap of the iMEGA Kentucky Supreme Court hearing right here on Poker News Daily.

Senator Wyden Withdraws Proposal to Use Internet Gambling to Fund Health Care

The debate on Capitol Hill rages on over health care reform, which, according to Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), will likely come with a nearly $1 trillion price tag. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) proposed using internet gambling revenue to defray some of the cost, but withdrew his amendment this week.

In a column that appeared in the Deseret News, Hatch noted, “At a time when we have trillion-dollar-plus deficits and an unemployment rate reaching double digits, [this health care reform] is a colossal mistake I cannot support.” With the massive cost turning many off, Wyden suggested using tax revenue from Congressman Barney Frank’s (D-MA) Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act (HR 2267). The bill establishes a full licensing and regulatory framework for the internet gambling industry in the United States.

Michael Waxman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, commented in a press release shortly after the amendment was introduced, “We applaud Senator Wyden’s proposal to collect and put to good use tens of billions in internet gambling revenue that would otherwise be lost in the underground marketplace. The Senate Finance Committee should approve this resolution, finally putting to an end a failed prohibition on Internet gambling that leaves Americans unprotected and unlicensed offshore operators as the only beneficiary in a thriving marketplace.”

HR 2267 was introduced in May and has attracted 58 cosponsors, the newest of which are William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Christopher Murphy (D-CT), and Adam Schiff (D-CA). Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily, “There are not many places you can go to find ‘free money’ right now. Internet gambling is one of them. You’re not going to have many industries wanting to be taxed.” Also in Congress is HR 2268, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act. The measure, introduced by Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), assesses a tax of 2% of deposits on licensed internet gambling outfits in the United States. HR 2268 was introduced on the same day as HR 2267 and has attracted four cosponsors.

A recent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers indicated that over $60 billion could be generated from taxing the internet gambling industry over a 10 year period. However, that figure includes legalized online wagering on sports. On Wednesday, “The Hill” published an article noting that Wyden had withdrawn his proposed amendment. The Senator’s Communications Director told the publication, “The last thing Senator Wyden wants to do is make it more difficult to expand subsidies for working families by introducing a new contentious issue to the debate. So when he offers the amendment, he will do it with other funding mechanisms.”

Wyden’s attempt to demonstrate tangible uses for internet gambling revenue comes on the heels of McDermott’s introduction of HR 6501 in July of 2008. McDermott’s bill, dubbed the Investing in Our Human Resources Act, provided up to $40 billion in assistance for those currently or formerly in foster care and those in declining job markets. HR 6501 was not acted on during the 110th Congress. McDermott’s proposal was not well-received, as Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D-NV) labeled it “a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.” Former Congressman Jon Porter (R-NV) piled on, saying that HR 6501 marked “a frivolous attack on the gaming community to pay for services that local governments, states, and the federal government should already be providing.”

Last month, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) introduced S 1597, the Internet Poker and Games of Skill Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. The bill, as its name implies, focuses on licensing games such as poker, bridge, chess, mahjong, and backgammon “in which success is predominantly determined by the skill of the players.” Menendez’s measure has not attracted any cosponsors.

Congress is targeting October 30th as its adjournment date for the 2009 calendar year.

Industry Reacts to Kentucky Supreme Court Taking Internet Gambling Case

On October 22nd, oral arguments will be heard in the Kentucky Supreme Court in Frankfort. Attorneys for the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) will argue why Governor Steve Beshear and company did not have jurisdiction to seize 141 internet gambling domain names.

The festivities will kick off at 11:00am local time and 15 minutes are allotted for each side to lobby their points. Despite the case centering on internet gambling, it has attracted a variety of interested parties, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The organization’s Bill Sharp told Poker News Daily, “We are pleased that the Kentucky Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case because its implications for free speech on the internet are extremely important, not just in Kentucky, but also globally.” A three-judge Court of Appeals panel ruled in favor of the industry in January. Counsel for the Commonwealth of Kentucky appealed one day later.

Also closely monitoring the developments in the Bluegrass State is the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative (SSIGI). The Washington, D.C.-based organization has been involved in numerous issues on a national level and its spokesperson, Michael Waxman, told Poker News Daily, “We stand united in opposition to the Governor’s misguided attempt to prohibit internet gambling activity. Prohibition has failed before and is not likely to stop Kentuckians or anyone in the U.S. from continuing to find a way to gamble online. The Kentucky Supreme Court should make the right decision and end the illegal seizure of gambling domain names.”

iMEGA claims that it has received support from a broad coalition that includes the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), ACLU, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Internet Commerce Association, eBay, and Network Solutions. PPA Executive Director John Pappas is looking forward to iMEGA’s arguments in the Kentucky Supreme Court on October 22nd: “I think iMEGA will make strong a case before the court. The PPA has filed amicus already and we hope our reasoned amicus talking about poker as a game of skill will hold weight in the justices’ eyes.”

As it currently stands, iMEGA’s case is the third of three on the docket for October 22nd and the final one to be heard that week. A lawsuit between Auto Owners Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company will kick off the proceedings at 9:00am, followed by a hearing about Miranda rights at 10:00am. A total of seven justices appear on the Kentucky Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Minton, Jr. The remainder of the panel includes Lisabeth Hughes Abramson, Bill Cunningham, Mary Noble, Wil Schroder, Will Scott, and Daniel Venters.

The Commonwealth seized the 141 internet gambling domain names in question on the grounds that they constituted illegal “gambling devices,” a term that traditionally refers to objects like slot machines and roulette wheels that you’d find in an underground casino. The list of sites at risk includes some of the industry’s giants like PokerStars, Ultimate Bet, and Full Tilt Poker. Judge Thomas Wingate upheld the Commonwealth’s actions in October, prompting iMEGA and company to seek the involvement of the Court of Appeals in Louisville.

The Bluegrass Institute held an emergency summit when the seizure first broke last September. Its Director of Policy and Communications, Jim Waters, told Poker News Daily, “Hopefully, the Supreme Court will protect the freedom we’ve enjoyed on the internet in Kentucky. If nothing else, maybe this action will force the State to clearly share its stance on online gambling.” A recent ruling in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the legality of internet gambling may ultimately depend on the state a player is located in.

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest from the Kentucky internet gambling case.

Kentucky Supreme Court to Hear Internet Gambling Case

In January, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled by a 2:1 margin that the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet did not have jurisdiction to seize 141 internet gambling domain names. In October, the Kentucky Supreme Court will hear the case.

The Cabinet appealed immediately following the Court of Appeals decision, which kicked off the 2009 calendar year in the online poker world. Now, attorneys for the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) and Commonwealth of Kentucky will take to the floor of the state’s Supreme Court on Thursday, October 22nd at 11:00am local time. On the 10-month turnaround, iMEGA Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily, “My understanding is that the October 22nd date is fairly expeditious when it comes to the Kentucky Supreme Court. Usually, appellate courts don’t hear things that quickly when there’s nothing driving it. The fact that the court is going to hear oral arguments so soon confirms that it has an interest in the subject matter.”

A bevy of organizations have submitted documents supporting iMEGA’s challenge against the Commonwealth of Kentucky, including the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), eBay, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). iMEGA is represented by Jon Fleischaker of Dinsmore and Shohl, which is based in Louisville, Kentucky. Brennan forecasted, “We saw the briefings that the Governor’s attorneys brought to the table and they don’t have a lot they can hang their heads on other than making a claim for a Federal ban on internet gambling that doesn’t exist. There’s no Federal law against gambling on the internet and no law in Kentucky. I’m pretty sure we’re going to beat them again.”

Last September, the Commonwealth seized the 141 internet gambling domain names in question, including those belonging to PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and Ultimate Bet, on the grounds that they constituted “gambling devices,” a term traditionally reserved for physical objects like dice and slot machines that you’d find in an illegal casino. In October, Judge Thomas Wingate upheld the Commonwealth’s actions, which were prompted by Governor Steve Beshear. iMEGA then sought the intervention of the Court of Appeals, which agreed with the trade association by a 2:1 vote in January.

The news comes on the heels of iMEGA falling short in its constitutional challenge of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). A three-judge panel in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with many of the organization’s basic arguments, but ruled that internet gambling may be legal in the U.S. dependent upon state law. On the UIGEA, the Court declared, “The Act itself does not make any gambling activity illegal. Whether the transaction… constitutes unlawful internet gambling turns on how the law of the state from which the bettor initiates the bet would treat that bet, i.e., if it is illegal under that state’s law, it constitutes ‘unlawful internet gambling’ under the Act.” IMEGA claims the decision could pave the way for legal internet gambling in 44 states.

iMEGA can appeal the Third Circuit’s ruling, although no decision has been made as to whether the organization will pursue that course of action. Brennan explained, “If we were to do something, it’d be applying to the Supreme Court or starting a new challenge against the UIGEA regulations. At this point, I wonder what the best use of our resources is. The Government managed to get the UIGEA upheld in a way that the states have a right to determine what kind of gambling is allowed within their borders.” The Third Circuit dismissed iMEGA’s claims that the UIGEA should be “void for vagueness” and that the 2006 law tramples on privacy rights, among other arguments.

Kentucky’s economy thrives on the presence of horse racing, whose premier event is the annual Kentucky Derby, held each May in Louisville. The parent company of Churchill Downs, the venue of the Derby, also owns and operates TwinSpires.com, which accepts real money wagers from Kentucky residents. Moreover, the state’s lottery offers an online second chance option.

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest from the Kentucky internet gambling case.

Mark Seif Joins the Inside Deal Crew for Latest Episode

On the latest episode of ESPN.com’s Inside Deal, Absolute Poker Pro Mark Seif joined Andrew Feldman and Bernard Lee in the Bristol studio to talk about the latest poker news, balancing poker and a family life and even got into some details about the Absolute and Ultimate Bet poker scandals.

Feldman filled in as co-anchor for a vacationing Laura Lane and he and Lee kicked off Tuesday’s show with the announcement that the upcoming Sports Legends Challenge had been postponed until 2010. The event was set to take place in the Bahamas later this month and Lee offered some insight into why the event struggled to get off the ground. “On the surface, the concept sounds like a great idea”, Lee explained. However, he went on to suggest the high cost of attending ($10,000) and the worldwide decline of the poker economy were the major factor’s affecting the event’s success.

Next on the agenda was a rundown of the ruling in the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) case against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Lee and Feldman discussed the affect the ruling against iMEGA’s case would have on the poker industry and also made sure to point out the upside of the decision, which was the clarification that the UIGEA did not make online gambling illegal and it was primarily up to the individual state laws in order to determine what constitutes an illegal financial transaction under the UIGEA.

For the next segment the two hosts were joined in studio by Seif, who began by giving some insight about what it is like to play on the poker tournament circuit for a living. Feldman ribbed Seif about his recent downswing and Seif had a surprising explanation of who was to blame for his struggles: his two young daughters.

“My beautiful two little girls, Sarah and Ashley, have definitely cost me $10 million”, Seif said with a laugh. He and Lee are both fathers and poker players and the two shared their difficulties finding enough time for their families and how long nights with young kids adversely affected their poker game.

The subject changed to a more serious matter when Feldman began to ask Seif about the scandal at Absolute Poker. Seif summed up the findings of the Kahnawake Gaming Commission (KGC) for those who weren’t in the know about the incident:

“[The KGC] determined there was a high ranking consultant for a period of about six weeks who abused his power to get into our back end software and was able to manipulate our system”, Seif stated. He went on to add that the company has gone to great lengths to compensate those who were affected by the breach, paying out almost $1.6 million when there was only an estimated $800,000 that was stolen by the individual.

When Feldman inquired about the subsequent Ultimate Bet scandal involving Russ Hamilton, Seif pointed out the key differences between the two incidents, noting that the Absolute Poker problem pertained to a single individual over a short period of time, while the UB problem involved a group of people over a much longer stretch of months. The discussion concluded with Seif assuring Lee and Feldman that, “the company has become very, very transparent.”

The two hosts also sought out Seif’s insight regarding poker free agency, as his deal with Absolute Poker is up for renewal in just six months. Seif commented on the changing nature of sponsorship deals, saying the growing number of sponsored players is bringing down the potential value of any given deal. The trio got to discussing the expected value of a sponsorship deal for any of the November Nine and Seif suggested one could be worth anywhere from $100,000 to $1.5 million depending on where the player ultimately finished. The subject of Darvin Moon came up once again and Feldman was baffled as to why the man would not consider some sort of final table deal.

The final segment was dedicated to some rapid fire questions for Seif, who addressed everything from his favorite steakhouse to how he feels about Scandinavian poker players. The episode wrapped up with Seif filling viewers in on a charity close to his heart, the Fallen Heros organization, which raises money for the family of police officers and fire fighters harmed or killed in the line of duty.

Within this week’s show Feldman also announced the details of an upcoming charity tournament to raise money for Kent Senter, the 55-year old featured on recent episodes of the WSOP on ESPN who is battling melanoma. Since playing in this year’s Main Event, Senter’s health has taken a turn for the worse. This Saturday PokerStars will be offering a $10 rebuy tournament at 8PM ET to raise money for the Senter family. The winner will receive an entry into PokerStars’ upcoming World Championship of Online Poker Main Event and proceeds from the tournament will go towards covering Senter’s medical expenses.

For more information on Senter and the full episode of this week’s Inside Deal, head on over to ESPN.com.

UIGEA Upheld by US Court

Sad news for online gamblers in the US this week as the 3rd Circuit Court upholds the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, rejecting the argument that the law is unconstitutional and should be repealed. The case was brought back to the court by The Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (IMEGA), who say they are considering filing an appeal.

UIGEA Upheld by US Court

Sad news for online gamblers in the US this week as the 3rd Circuit Court upholds the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, rejecting the argument that the law is unconstitutional and should be repealed. The case was brought back to the court by The Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (IMEGA), who say they are considering filing an appeal.

Internet Gambling Law Expert Reacts to UIGEA Decision

The story of the week in the internet gambling industry has been the constitutional challenge to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) brought on by the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA). Internet gambling law expert I. Nelson Rose comments on the ruling, which was passed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Third Circuit tossed out iMEGA’s arguments that the UIGEA violated the First and Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as well as privacy rights and international treaties. However, the judicial body asserted, “It bears repeating that the Act itself does not make any gambling activity illegal. Whether the transaction… constitutes unlawful internet gambling turns on how the law of the state from which the bettor initiates the bet would treat that bet, i.e., if it is unlawful under that state’s law, it constitutes ‘unlawful internet gambling’ under the Act.” The bet must also be legal in the jurisdiction in which the internet gambling operator is located.

Rose was perplexed by the Third Circuit’s ruling, which seemed to, in part, shed light on the UIGEA’s meaning. He told Poker News Daily, “This decision was written by judges who appear to know absolutely nothing about gaming law.” Rose reiterated that only two states, Hawaii and Utah, ban commercial gambling. The 10-page court ruling cites Oregon as a state in which it may be problematic to conduct internet gambling. However, Rose noted, “It is bizarre to use Oregon as an example. Oregon has more forms of legal gambling than Nevada.”

Deferring to the states, therefore, may not be a straightforward endeavor. Rose explained, “I practiced law in Hawaii for over three years and I can tell you that neither these nor any other existing Hawaiian statutes clearly make all forms of internet gambling illegal.  The Oregon statute cited merely makes it a crime to transfer money for ‘unlawful gambling using the internet,’ which brings us back to the question of whether any other existing law covers internet gambling.” The U.S. Department of Justice, for example, may assert that online poker is illegal under the Wire Act, although organizations like the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) would deny such an interpretation.

If internet gambling’s legality varies on a state-by-state basis, then a long road may be in store for financial services outfits like Visa and MasterCard. Rose forecasted, “The reality is that some forms of internet gambling are expressly legal, such as pari-mutuel bets on horseracing in most states. In every other case, it would take a detailed analysis by a competent gaming lawyer to know whether the state’s anti-gambling laws might apply.” A handful of states allow permit lottery purchases, further complicating the matter. For example, TwinSpires.com, a site that offers online wagering on horse racing, is owned by the same publicly traded parent company as Churchill Downs in Kentucky.

A press release issued by iMEGA shortly after the Third Circuit’s decision noted that some forms of internet gambling were “potentially lawful” in 44 states. The organization added, “There are only a half-dozen states which have laws against internet gambling.” The Poker Voters of America (PVA) is leading the charge for licensed and regulated intrastate online poker in California. The PVA is also pushing for intrastate wagering in Florida. California offers a bevy of card rooms sprinkled within its borders, including the Commerce Casino and Bicycle Casino, which host World Poker Tour events.

iMEGA may appeal the Third Circuit’s decision in an effort to overturn the UIGEA, which was its primary goal. However, no decision has yet been made. The U.S. Department of Justice can also appeal the ruling.

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest on the iMEGA UIGEA challenge. A wealth of information on U.S. internet gambling statutes can be found at Rose’s website, GamblingAndTheLaw.com.

iMEGA, Poker Players Alliance React to UIGEA Ruling

Twenty-four hours ago, the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) came up short in its bid to overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). In the process, internet gambling may now become an industry governed by state law.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that the legality of internet gambling transactions may ultimately depend on where the bettor and operator are located. If the industry is permitted in both jurisdictions, then online poker players may be able to return to the felts in droves. The opinion, which was penned by Judge Dolores Sloviter, read in part, “Whether the transaction…constitutes unlawful internet gambling turns on how the law of the state from which the bettor initiates the bet would treat that bet, i.e. if it is illegal under that state’s law, it constitutes ‘unlawful internet gambling’ under the Act.”

In a press release distributed by iMEGA following Tuesday’s historic ruling, Chairman Joe Brennan noted, “The court made it clear - gambling on the internet is unlawful where state law says so. But there are only a half-dozen states which have laws against Internet gambling, leaving 44 states where it is potentially lawful. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good start.” Internet gambling law varies by state based on the type of transaction, number of times the consumer is raked, and game type, among other factors. Several states allow online lottery transactions and wagering on horse racing, while others like Utah and Hawaii ban all forms of commercial gambling.

What happens next is anyone’s guess. States may soon find it prudent to clarify laws and statutes related to internet gambling. In the meantime, a push by the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) on Capitol Hill for legalized and regulated online poker may come to fruition through future passage of a bill by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA). PPA Executive Director John Pappas told Poker News Daily, “While I am disappointed that iMEGA’s full arguments did not prevail, it was encouraging to see the courts reaffirm that the UIGEA does not make playing internet poker illegal. The PPA and our legal team have long argued that the UIGEA should not force banks to block poker transactions in a vast majority of states. This decision might very well help as banks make those determinations on what to block; simply follow state law.”

On handing over the determination of whether internet gambling is permissible to the states, Brennan commented in the same press release, “States have always held the power to regulate gambling in this country, not the Federal government. The court’s ruling seems to say ‘back to the future’ when it comes to regulating internet gambling, so we will turn our attention to the states to make the case that this industry can be properly regulated and produce badly needed tax revenue.” Land-based gambling is already governed at the state level, with Nevada, New Jersey, and Mississippi leading the way. A bevy of riverboat casinos have also sprung up in states like Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri.

Brennan told Poker News Daily that the organization has not yet decided whether it will appeal the three-judge panel’s decision. The magistrates dismissed iMEGA’s claims that the UIGEA violated the First Amendment, Tenth Amendment, privacy rights, and treaty obligations over the course of its 10-page ruling. In the end, the cloudy law, which was passed during the waning moments of the 2006 Congressional session, was not declared unconstitutional, as iMEGA had hoped. However, the court’s ruling may have ultimately led to the same endgame, clarification of the legality of internet gambling and online poker in the United States.

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest reaction to iMEGA’s UIGEA challenge.

UIGEA Clarified: Legality of Internet Gambling Depends on State Law

A three-judge panel disagreed with many of the arguments made by the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) on Tuesday as to why the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) should be deemed unconstitutional. In the process, however, internet gambling may now be a states’ rights issue.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals passed down the historic ruling on Tuesday morning, which included the following text that should be of interest to online poker players: “It bears repeating that the Act itself does not make any gambling activity illegal. Whether the transaction… constitutes unlawful internet gambling turns on how the law of the state from which the bettor initiates the bet would treat that bet, i.e., if it is illegal under that state’s law, it constitutes ‘unlawful internet gambling.’” In essence, internet gambling apparently may be treated the same as brick-and-mortar gambling, which is governed at the state level. As it currently stands, six states have laws on the books outlawing internet gambling to various degrees.

The judges also indicated that the legality of internet gambling also depends on where the company accepting the wager is located: “The Act prohibits a gambling business from knowingly accepting certain financial instruments from an individual who places a bet over the internet if such gambling is illegal at the location in which the business is located or from which the individual initiates the bet.”

The panel, while seemingly clarifying the 2006 law, rejected iMEGA’s claims that the UIGEA was “void for vagueness” and violated First Amendment rights. On the latter point, the court explained that “acceptance of a financial transfer” is not a First Amendment right.

Despite the UIGEA not being overturned as a result of Tuesday’s actions, iMEGA Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily, “The judges went to pains to clarify that the law did not make internet gambling itself illegal. The UIGEA made no act illegal other than the payment processors taking money. The UIGEA defers to state laws to make the determination.” As long as the bettor and the internet gambling outfit are both located in jurisdictions where the activity is not outlawed, the UIGEA is not violated.

Brennan told Poker News Daily that he had not determined whether iMEGA would appeal the Third Circuit’s decision. It is also unclear whether the U.S. Government would appeal. Still also at issue is the Wire Act of 1961, which some would argue makes online poker and other forms of internet gambling illegal in the United States at the federal level. Brennan explained, “The Wire Act only affects businesses. Is the Wire Act still a problem? Yes, but it doesn’t make it illegal.” A feature by the CBS news program “60 Minutes,” for example, labeled online poker illegal multiple times, even though organizations like the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) contend that the 1961 law does not apply to internet poker.

The three-judge panel also rejected iMEGA’s claims that the UIGEA violated privacy rights and the Tenth Amendment. The latter asserts, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Third Circuit instead claimed that as a third party, iMEGA lacked standing to argue the point.

What effect Tuesday’s decision will have on the internet gambling industry in the United States remains to be seen. Congress returns from session after Labor Day, when the PPA plans to push Barney Frank’s (D-MA) HR 2266, which delays financial services industry compliance with the regulations of the UIGEA by one year to December 1st, 2010. The measure has 35 co-sponsors and was introduced in early May.

iMEGA plans to release additional analysis on its UIGEA challenge later today. Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest poker legislation headlines.

Online Poker Funds Remain Seized in Account Services Case

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, online poker funds seized by the Southern District of New York belonging to Account Services will remain under guard for what the newspaper claimed “could be years.”

On August 21st, a hearing was originally scheduled featuring lawyers for the online poker payment processor Account Services arguing why $14 million should be returned to the company. The funds were seized as part of a June raid by the Southern District of New York and were contained in Wells Fargo and Union Bank accounts in California. Account Services filed a motion for return of property in the Southern District of California and the case was assigned to Judge Jeffrey Miller. However, the hearing was later cancelled indefinitely.

On Saturday, the Union-Tribune published a story claiming that Miller “denied a bid Thursday by lawyers for the company, Account Services Inc., and the Poker Players Alliance to return the money. The players group is an advocacy organization that represents some 1 million online poker players.” It added, “Now, after Miller ruled against them, it could be years before they see any of the money.” The Southern District of New York seized well over $30 million in total, affecting more than 24,000 online poker players.

Paper checks and e-checks began bouncing in June, leading to concern on popular online poker forums about the security of player deposits. In many cases, the online poker sites, including PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, compensated players fully and oftentimes awarded a cash bonus for any inconvenience. The warrant to seize funds from the Union Bank accounts identified Full Tilt and PokerStars by name as clients of Account Services. The document read, “Account Services has previously provided payment services for companies providing online gambling services, including PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, the largest internet poker businesses in operation.”

The Wells Fargo account was used to pay online poker players in 2008 and 2009. Still redacted (crossed out) in its warrant application is evidence that led the Southern District of New York to finger PokerStars and Full Tilt in the first place.

Account Services’ Douglas Rennick was indicted earlier this month on bank fraud, money laundering, and illegal gambling charges. He faces up to 55 years in jail and up to a $1.75 million fine plus forfeiture of funds obtained. The San Diego news outlet explains, “Prosecutors then argued the indictment made the San Diego lawsuit irrelevant and that Miller should not hear it. The judge agreed, saying the players could try to recover the money after the criminal case is resolved.”

Rennick is a Canadian citizen and, as of yet, has not surrendered to U.S. authorities. The indictment issued by the Southern District of New York revealed that Rennick had been in the business of processing internet gambling payments since 2007. Over $350 million was transferred from a bank account in Cyprus for this purpose and “Rennick… provided false and misleading information to various United States banks about, among other things, the nature of the internet gambling-related payments being processed by the companies under Rennick’s control in order to induce banks to engage in financial transactions that they otherwise would not have facilitated.”

The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) filed an amicus brief on behalf of Account Services despite Rennick’s indictment. The 1.2 million member strong organization argued that poker is a game of skill and therefore not illegal gambling. Account Services added that funds in the Union Bank accounts were seized without a warrant, which was issued about a dozen days after the asset freeze took place. FBI Special Agent Dana Conte swore to both warrant applications.

Poker News Daily is seeking comment from the PPA and Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA).

The Fight to Legalize Online Poker in United States Continues

The poker resistance, led by the Poker Players Alliance and the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association, would like nothing more than the opportunity to argue in a United States court that poker is a game of skill and its online play...

The Fight to Legalize Online Poker in United States Continues

The poker resistance, led by the Poker Players Alliance and the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association, would like nothing more than the opportunity to argue in a United States court that poker is a game of skill and its online play...