POKER/GAMBLING NEWS

Update: US Federal Strike At Online Poker Sites

Has Rival given up the US market?

The Friday’s indictments of major online poker companies issued by the US federal authorities are still in the main news around the world. New developments after the US federal crackdown of the biggest online poker sites included official comments from Pokerstars and Full Tilt, even though Blanca Games, who own UB.com and Absolute Poker, haven’t issued any statements so far.

PokerStars declared in a statement through a pop-up on its poker client that it has stopped real-money play in the United States, advising: "As you may have heard, we have had to suspend real money poker services to people based in the U.S. due to legal developments there. The developments are confined to the U.S. and do not have any impact on your ability to continue using our services. Please be assured player balances are safe. There is no cause for concern. For all customers outside the U.S. it is business as usual," but also it’s been added that the PokerStars website had been moved to Pokerstars.eu. 

Full Tilt Poker’s statement expressed the support for its executives named in the indictments, but it has also suspended its real money services to US players. In addition, planned Onyx Cup poker series has been cancelled. In the statement, the company says, "Online poker is a game of skill enjoyed by tens of millions of people in the United States and across the world. And, Full Tilt Poker remains as committed as ever to preserving the rights of those players to play the game they love online. Mr. Bitar and Full Tilt Poker believe online poker is legal – a position also taken by some of the best legal minds in the United States. Full Tilt Poker is, and has always been committed to preserving the integrity of the game and abiding by the law."

It’s also added that, "Full Tilt Poker is saddened by the charges against its CEO Raymond Bitar and offers its full support to Mr. Bitar and Nelson Burtnick." Raymond Bitar commented, “I am surprised and disappointed by the government’s decision to bring these charges. I look forward to Mr. Burtnick’s and my exoneration.”

An executive director of the trade association Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, Michael Waxman told the media: “Since the government is seeking to crack down on the freedom of the internet, we need Congress to act more than ever now to legalize and regulate the activity. This is a major development that will bring more attention to this issue. I hope it encourages Congress to move more quickly, especially as concerned Americans look for answers and a solution.”

It was reported by some players that they were told by supporting agents at Rival-powered white label online casinos that they are no longer accepting new US players, and this ban is also confirmed when US players tried to register. Everyone suspects it has to do with the federal action on Friday, but there hasn’t been any official public statement on these allegations from Rival or the operators concerned.

Update: More Reactions To Federal Indictments

Experts, opponents and advocates of online poker issue statements

It seems that the current situation with online poker in the US touches everyone, with a number of new reactions to the federal indictments against major online poker companies and their processors being issued by experts, opponents and advocates of online poker in the lucrative US market.

According to the senior Democrat on the US House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, this move represents "an incredible waste of resources," adding that the seizures conducted in the action protect "the public from the scourge of inside straights."

He added: "Go after the people responsible for empty houses, not full houses. I'm not saying violate the law, but to give this priority in law enforcement over some other things I think is a terrible idea and I think the administration is wrong on this."

In regards to the crackdown, it may have affected more than just the indicted sites – with around $16 billion spent by U.S. players on Full Tilt Poker, PokerStars and Absolute Poker last year, the initiative’s casualties include casual and professional players and their backers, programmers and investors.

As a result, the ESPN television sports channel, which is owned by Walt Disney Co., has announced that it is removing poker advertising and programming: “We are aware of the indictment only through what has been announced publicly. For the immediate future, we are making efforts to remove related advertising and programming pending further review.”

As for the state of Nevada, where Pokerstars has been prominent in pushing for legalized intrastate legislation, there have been calls to investigate the political funding invested by the company in the amount of around $272 000. This is due to the fact, claimed the State Senator Greg Brower, a Republican and a former US Attorney for Nevada, that contributions by foreign entities to federal, state and even municipal political campaigns are not permitted by federal law.

Some of the 68 recipients of the funds (politicians seeking election to the state legislature, constitutional officers of the state and political parties and action committees) allegedly include secretary of state Miller, who denied the claims, Assembly Speaker John Oceguera ($10 000), Nevada governor Brian Sandoval ($10 000) and his rival for the post Rory Reid ($10 000).

As for one of the first indictees to appear before the Utah federal court, a vice chairman and part owner of SunFirst Bank John Campos (57), charged with violating the UIGEA, operating an illegal gambling business and money laundering, he was released by Magistrate Judge Robert T Braithwaite on condition that he surrender his passport, report to pre-trial services as requested and appear at future hearings in New York, where the indictment was filed.

According to a reputable US gambling law expert, Professor I. Nelson Rose, the timing for the indictments is very suspicious, having in mind the positive moves towards state and federal regulation. He said that interrupting the process may have been the goal, adding that the prosecutors have the problem of convincing a jury that there is bank fraud when the "victims" are tricked into making millions of dollars.

In his article "Federal Poker Indictments: Revisiting Prohibition" Prof Rose opines: “Prohibition created modern organized crime, by outlawing alcoholic beverages.  When people want something and it is illegal, organizations will arise to fill the demand.  How much more so when the activity, online poker, is not even clearly illegal?"

He also states: "The DoJ has been waging a war of intimidation against Internet gambling for years, successfully scaring players, operators, payment processors and affiliates into abandoning the American market.”

"Lacking the two essentials to any prosecution – a statute that clearly makes the activity illegal and a defendant physically present in the U.S. – the feds have announced showy legal action against easy targets about every other year.

"Online poker is not an easy target, since a federal Court of Appeal ruled the Wire Act is limited to bets on sports events.  And tricking financial institutions into processing poker payments seems a technicality, especially since the banks made millions without paying a penny in fines."

Considering the future fall-out from the federal action, the professor doubts that it will deter poker players, but notes that there are many famous American poker players and others who are associated with the indicted operators who could experience some of the fall out.

Another comment arrived this week from the Antiguan Minister for Finance and the Economy, the Honourable Harold Lovell, who stated that the federal action is "...the latest effort by the American authorities to shut off competition in remote gaming in violation of International law."

He also added: “I am concerned that at this point in time United States authorities continue to prosecute non-domestic suppliers of remote gaming services in clear contravention of International law.

"I am not aware of any other situation where a member of the World Trade Organisation has subjected persons to criminal prosecution under circumstances where the WTO has expressly ruled that to do so is in breach of an International treaty.”

In addition, Antigua’s legal counsel in its dispute with the US at the WTO, Mark Mendel, commented: “The WTO ruled that these kinds of laws criminalizing the provision of remote gaming services are contrary to the obligations of the United States under the WTO agreements.

"The United States, being a very heavy user of the WTO rules to its own benefit, simply cannot continue to prosecute persons for engaging in legitimate International commerce.”

“What the United States has attempted to cloak as a moral issue is now clearly nothing but economic protectionism at its worst.

"Rather than engaging with Antigua and the world gaming community to reach a reasonable accommodation on this relatively new but now globalised form of economic commerce, the United States has instead determined to protect its domestic gaming interests regardless of International legal obligations.

"This is very hard to reconcile not only with its pronouncements regarding the imperative of other countries to strictly observe their WTO trade obligations but also with stated official United States government policy of adherence to the rule of law.”

“Given the time that has been spent by the Antiguan government on sincere attempts to negotiate a reasonable settlement with the United States, and the very meagre results that have come of those discussions, it might be time for Antigua to go back to the WTO and compel American compliance with the rulings that this very small country fought so hard for and deserves to see implemented.”

According to the Antiguan government's statement, "Last weeks’ indictments and other recent developments would seem to indicate that the United States is still unwilling or unable to tackle the issue of offshore remote gaming services in a mature and legally compliant fashion.

It was concluded: “At this time we are examining all of the options we have against the United States as a result of the WTO decision. We are confident that the WTO rulings have significant strength and we are now looking into ways to capitalise on that in order to achieve our objectives.”

Anti-poker crusade a waste of resources

Preet Bharara seems to be haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere, may be playing poker. Last year, Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, threatened an Australian payment processor with up to 75 years in prison for helping online poker companies do business with their U.S. customers. Last Friday, he announced similar charges against 11 people associated with the three leading poker sites serving American players.

If you type in the Web address for PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker or Absolute Poker, you will see a notice that the domain name has been seized by the FBI. The notice cites some impressive-sounding crimes, but the statutory language cannot conceal the legal weakness and moral triviality of Bharara’s charges.

This is only the second time that the Justice Department has used the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) in a criminal indictment. That 2006 law made it a federal offense, punishable by up to five years in prison, for a gambling business to “knowingly accept” payments “in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling.”

But the UIGEA glaringly failed to clarify what “unlawful Internet gambling” meant. Bharara does not claim online poker directly violates federal law, which prohibits the use of “a wire communication facility” to accept bets “on any sporting event or contest” but is silent on the legality of other online wagers. Instead, he piggybacks on a New York statute that makes promoting “unlawful gambling activity” a Class A misdemeanor.

In New York, gambling is unlawful if it is “not specifically authorized.” But the law states that “a person engages in gambling when he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

As a pretty poor but regular poker player, I can testify that it is not merely “a contest of chance”; it is a game of skill, like Scrabble or backgammon, in which chance plays an important role. That is the position taken by the online poker companies as well as the Poker Players Alliance, whose chairman, former Sen. Alfonse D’Amato (R-N.Y.), declared on Friday that “online poker is not a crime and should not be treated as such.”

Bharara’s indictment also mentions “the laws of other states,” a few of which do explicitly ban online poker. But it is bizarre to give those laws nationwide force, such that the federal government closes down a poker site’s entire American operation because Washington state does not want its residents to play the game online. If respecting a particular state’s paternalistic policies were the goal, blocking access by people in that state would be a more sensible solution.

Bharara takes an alleged New York misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of one year in jail and turns it into multiple federal felonies — including UIGEA violations, money laundering, wire fraud and bank fraud — that could send the lead defendant, PokerStars CEO Isai Scheinberg, to prison for 65 years, assuming that Scheinberg is foolish enough to set foot in the U.S. and hardy enough to reach the age of 129. Based on the same allegations, Bharara is also seeking billions of dollars in asset forfeitures.

The fraud charges are especially dubious, since they stem from various tricks the poker companies and their payment processors allegedly used to conceal the nature of their transactions from U.S. banks. The banks did not suffer any losses as a result of this purported fraud — to the contrary, they earned millions of dollars in transfer fees.

More important than the question of whether Bharara can win this case is the question of why on earth he brought it to begin with. Is there so little real crime in the Southern District of New York that Bharara feels free to waste taxpayer money on a pointless puritanical crusade? ------------AMEN!

Chicago Sun-Times

Update: Online Poker Study Approved in Iowa

Legalization initiative finally sees some movement

It seems like there is light at the end of a tunnel for the online poker legalization proposal in the state of Iowa, which finally made some progress in the state Senate, after it had been stripped out of more general gambling legislation.

It was explained that the Ways and Means Committee didn’t pass the bill because some of the legislators lacked knowledge regarding the matter, so it was separated from other gambling provisions and sent to the Senate, along with a recommendation to task the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission to draft a study and report back by December 1st 2011.

This obviously seemed acceptable to the Senate, which showed its approval in a 38 to 12 vote, allowing the bill to move forward to the House, expecting its approval.

DoJ’s Domain Deal with Indicted Companies Creates More Confusion

More and more questions that need answering

There seems to be no end to the confusion created by the federal action against major online poker companies. This week, the industry was once again puzzled by the US Department of Justice’s decision to allow Pokerstars and Full Tilt Poker to use their seized domains to facilitate the payout of funds deposited with them by US players.

What’s so confusing about this new development is the paradox it embodies – namely, online poker sites, whose transactions are proclaimed illegal are being asked to make financial transactions by a major legal body in the country.

In addition, there’s the question of the collaboration itself – if the companies are ready to cooperate with the DoJ, does that mean they are acknowledging the jurisdiction and authority of the US authorities and thereby also accepting the federal action against them?

Also, is the DoJ actually suggesting that the funds should be returned to players or to authorities, having in mind that many millions of dollars are in the game here?

Despite the previous statement of the US Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York, that “no individual player accounts were ever frozen or restrained, and each implicated poker company has at all times been free to reimburse any player's deposited funds," Full Tilt Poker issued a somewhat different statement, observing that “the government has not agreed to permit any of the seized player funds to be returned to the players.” It was further added that the agreement is a good first step, but that it won’t be able to give players refunds until the government gives up control of its funds.

It was also stressed that “there remain significant practical and legal impediments to returning funds to players in the immediate future,” and that due to the enforcement measures, there are now no [legal US] channels through which the refunds can be paid.

As for Pokerstars, the company only issued a notice to its players, assuring them that their account balances are safe, with resources available to pay, and all funds held in ring-fenced accounts separate from company assets, as required by its Isle of Man licensing authority.

On the other side, the outraged Poker Players Alliance has been active issuing statements of disapproval of the federal actions, with the latest one containing its view of the agreement closed between the DoJ and the indicted online poker sites:

“The poker players have spoken, and it seems the U.S. Government has heard their cries. But players are still in pain. While today’s action allows players on two of the three online poker sites to access their funds, this is just a small victory in the ongoing fight to protect Americans’ rights to play poker online.

"Even with today’s announcement, millions of Americans are being denied their hobby, a vocation and in many cases their livelihood because they remain unable to play poker on the Internet.

“Over the past few days, PPA members sent more than 65,000 emails and letters, and made thousands of phone calls to the DoJ, the Administration and Congress demanding access to the money in their online accounts and condemning the DoJ’s declaration of war on poker.

“Online poker players have been the true victims of the DoJ’s action, and it is good to see the DoJ recognizing that fact and working with Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars to get players their money. Yet, the fight to protect American’s freedom to play poker online is not over.

“Now more than ever, poker players are uniting against the vague laws that continue to obstruct their right to play this game of skill in any format. Americans from all walks of life enjoy this great game, from stay at home moms to disabled veterans to the thousands of average Americans who earn or supplement their income through online poker winnings and they continue to tell their stories through online forums, the media, and calls and letters to Congress.

“The message they are sending is clear – at a time of such economic weakness in the U.S., citizens expect their government to be wholly focused on improving their way of life through job and revenue creation, not attacking their personal activities. Congress needs to recognize the benefit of licensing and regulating online poker to protect players’ rights while adding thousands of jobs and billions in revenue to the U.S. market.

“Online poker is not illegal and it’s time the government stops treating American poker players like criminals and protect the rights of their constituents.

"Congress has two choices. Either pass legislation to license and regulate online poker to provide much needed support to the U.S. economy, while offering a safe and stable environment for millions of Americans to play poker, or ignore millions of their constituents and pay the price at the polls in 2012.

"The answer is clear. Congress must listen to its citizens and take necessary action to license and regulate online poker – we know it, Congress knows it, and millions of Americans are demanding it.”

Many comments have been issued by relevant news publications, who mostly took a supportive position on the industry, including Time and The LA Times, as well as Sun Magazine and others. All of them agreed that more jobs and tax revenues would be created by a regulatory and licensing regime, which would also bring more protection to the US players and add more safety to the industry's operations.

Caesar's CEO Supports Legalization…

… but only in terms of poker and only on federal level

This week, prompted by the recent indictments against online poker sites, Caesars Entertainment CEO Gary Loveman issued an op-ed article, in which he expressed support to the notion of legalized online poker in the USA, but only through the federal route.

“Only federal legislation can clear up the current ambiguities in U.S. law and crack down on other online gambling like sports betting and casino games,” Loveman wrote.

In terms of the above mentioned enforcement actions, Loveman stated that they represent a chance for the United States to regulate and legalize the industry, referring particularly to online poker. He seems to be of the same controversial opinion as the US Department of Justice, stating: "Online poker is currently illegal in the U.S. and, as a result, the $6 billion industry has developed overseas, catering to the wishes of millions of Americans playing from their homes in Ohio, California, Mississippi and every other state. That's crazy."

However, he added that the indictments against online poker giants such as PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker won’t change the fact that millions of Americans want to play online poker.

“Instead, the question is this: Should we seize the moment to legalize online poker, permit a safe and legitimate industry in the U.S., and bring these jobs and revenues home?” Loveman asserted. “Unequivocally, the answer is yes.”

In the first public statements about the indictments from the company that owns the World Series of Poker, Loveman compared the enforcement moves to alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, opining that adults are being “hamstrung by a law keeping them from activities they consider appropriate.” In addition, he said: “Business is being diverted from legitimate, respected companies that employ thousands of people to fly-by-night, underground (and in this case, foreign) operations.”

He also warned that "just like Prohibition, consumers lose all of the protections that come with a government-regulated onshore business. And millions of otherwise law-abiding adult Americans are hamstrung by a law they disrespect and consider to be a barrier to a perfectly appropriate activity.”

According to him, there’s now a unique opportunity, thanks to the DoJ’s actions, to "...bring thousands of jobs home to America, to generate revenues that benefit Americans rather than foreign companies and to bring clarity to the current ambiguous set of federal laws.” As a conclusion, he said: “We should seize the moment."

"The question we face isn't "will there be online poker?" Millions of Americans have already answered that question through their regular play, and the latest indictments won't change that. In fact, less than 24 hours after the three poker sites were closed, other foreign operators began filling the void."

In terms of the federal solution his company advocates, Loveman assessed: "Unfortunately, however well-intentioned it may be, state level legislation will not adequately address the problems that currently exist.

"The goals of legislation are simple: let Americans play online poker in the privacy of their homes, and create jobs and revenues here in America. Only federal legislation can accomplish that, by creating a well-regulated system of online poker. And only federal legislation can clear up the current ambiguities in U.S. law and crack down on other online gambling like sports betting and casino games."

"In short, this bill should recognize the reality of the world we live in....And it should acknowledge that as a game of skill, poker deserves to be treated differently than other forms of gambling," Loveman opines, concluding: "One day, we'll look back at 2011 and laugh at the folly of a ban on Internet poker -- just like we now think about Prohibition. The sooner that day comes, the better."

Online Gambling’s Arch-Opponent May Be Changing His Position

Is Senator Kyl considering legalization of online poker?

According to the latest update on the online gambling’s arch-enemy in the US political system, Senator Jon Kyl’s website, the Senator may have relaxed his strict position on online gambling, suggesting the possibility of another legislative exemption, this one applied to online poker, in addition to already existing carve outs on fantasy games, horse racing and state lotteries.

This change of heart of the Senator who was among the major advocates of the UIGEA, may be a result of the recent DoJ’s actions against major online poker site.

About the issue, the Senator stated: "I have opposed efforts to legalize Internet gambling in the past because evidence suggests that it fosters problems unlike any other forms of gambling. Online players can gamble 24 hours a day from home; children can play without sufficient age verification; and betting with a credit card can undercut a player’s perception of the value of cash - leading to possible addiction and, in turn, bankruptcy, crime, and even suicide.

"Efforts to carve out an exception for games like poker, which many believe is a game of skill, may be considered later this year. Until I have the chance to review them, I cannot make a judgment about their merits; but I will consider them carefully as long as they leave in place the broader proscriptions against online betting."

"New media like the Internet can provide a wealth of information and opportunity to those who use it with good intentions.  But it can also present new opportunities for those who would use it to prey on their fellow citizens," he concluded.

Update: Important Step for Online Poker Legalization

After a tough road, a new measure is ready for the Assembly

Sen. Jeff Danielson’s Iowa bill proposal seems to be making some progress even though it has been changed from an online poker legalization bill to one calling for a report on the consequences and advantages of such bill. In the next step, the measure requests from Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission to conduct the report by December 1st 2011. Since it had a positive passage through the House State Government Committee, it could face the Assembly next week for a vote.

The original legalization bill saw a really fast progress through various legislative committees despite a really tough deadline (April 1st), but it still fell victim to the political ignorance on the subject. Still the bill supporters say that around 150 000 Iowans currently play online poker for real money, repeating that online poker legalization would bring additional $30 million in tax revenues to the state coffers of Iowa.

Update: Another Chance to Spread the Idea about Online Gambling

PPA at the House Judiciary Committee hearing next Tuesday

It has been announced that the Poker Players Alliance had a meeting with the political staffers of the House Judiciary Committee and Congress members about the Department of Justice oversight hearing, which is going to be held next Tuesday, May 3, at 10:15am in Washington DC, Rayburn House Office Building.

On that occasion, Attorney General Eric Holder is going to testify, which will be a great opportunity to get a better idea about legality of the Department of Justice’s position on internet gambling and particularly on internet poker.

After the Black Friday indictments, internet gambling is in the focus of media coverage, which resulted in the PPA making a relevant internet link available at http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html, where members can express their concerns, suggestions and questions for committee.

Saw this article and thought it was very well written...spoke every questions I had inside my head...

Gambling and the Law: Black Friday - A Step Too Far

Can a government be charged with war crimes, if the war is only one of intimidation?

The U.S. federal Department of Justice isn’t blowing up buses. No one has died. But while Palestinian terrorists can only close down Israeli pizza parlors; the DoJ stopped online poker sites from doing business anywhere in the world – including where poker is 100% legal.

On Friday, April 15, 2011, the DoJ seized the .com names of five of the biggest poker sites. It is not even clear that online poker is illegal in every state and territory of the U.S. But players in countries like England, where it is indisputably legal, also found themselves unable to access their favorite sites.

This is a door the U.S. should never have opened. The next to step through could be an Islamic country, which outlaws alcohol, seizing the worldwide domain names of every retailer and restaurant that advertises beer or wine.

And the DoJ also effectively froze the money deposited by hundreds of thousands of American players, who had done nothing wrong. There is no federal law against merely playing poker. Half the states do have mostly ancient laws on the books making it a crime, sometimes, to make a bet. But in the other half, it is not a crime to even bet with an illegal operation.

This is true of New York, where the DoJ’s legal actions were filed. The criminal indictments charged the online operators under a statute, 18 U.S.C. §1955, which makes it a federal felony to be a large business in violation of state anti-gambling laws. The only state laws cited are New York’s Penal Law 225 and 225.05, which clearly do not apply to mere poker players.

Black Friday saw widespread panic among players, and the threat of a worldwide bank run on online gaming operators. By Wednesday, the DoJ appeared to realize it had way overstepped its power, and that it is losing the public relations war.

On April 20, Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan who had seized the domain names, announced that an agreement had been reached with PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker. Technically, the .com names remain seized. But the DoJ will now permit the companies to operate money games outside of the U.S., which they always had the legal right to do anyway. American players can also go to the .com sites and get their deposits back.

Bharara issued the following statement: “No individual player accounts were ever frozen or restrained, and each implicated poker company has at all times been free to reimburse any player's deposited funds.”

Technically true, but misleading. Exactly how were players supposed to get their money, when they could not log on to the seized .com sites? Did Bharara tell the operators they could refund players’ deposits, and how they were suppose to do that? Even today the DoJ has not worked out all the details on what it will allow.

Notice that the announced agreement is only with PokerStars and Full-Tilt. Those companies have licenses and approvals by foreign jurisdictions, including France, Italy and Alderney, which they want to protect. They also would like to someday return to the U.S., once the laws are changed. Absolute is licensed by the Kahnawake tribe in Canada and has always taken the position that it does not have to be overly concerned with the laws of Canada, the U.S., or any other jurisdiction. So it is standing tough. In fact, it is still accepting money players from the U.S.

Winners and losers:

Traffic on the seized sites seems to be down, but not precipitously. Americans must have quickly discovered that they can sign up to the same operators through .eu and .uk sites.

Hit as hard have been media outlets which depend on poker ads. No reason to spend money on PokerStars.net commercials if players can’t be converted onto PokerStars.com. That is probably the real reason for ESPN cancelling so many poker TV shows.

Traffic on rival sites that continue to take bets from the U.S. have increased, but not spectacularly. Players do have their favorites, and don’t necessarily trust the other sites. Plus, their money is still tied up.

Purely European companies, like Playtech, and the not-quite Internet poker sites are also doing well. PurePlay.com, a subscription poker site with free alternative means of entry, based in San Francisco, received $2.8 million in new funding after Black Friday. And Atlantis Internet Group Corporation, which is setting up legal closed-circuit computer linked poker on Indian land, saw its stock rise 400% in the last few days.

Brick and mortar card clubs and casino cardrooms have seen modest increases in the number of poker players. The first weekend after the online players’ funds are freed up will show whether the crackdown on Internet competition can help save Atlantic City.

In the long run it will probably be the largest landbased operators, like Caesars, and online sites which had already pulled out of the U.S., led by Bwin-Party and 888, that will be the biggest winners. The indictments reinforce proponents’ arguments that the states should legalize intra-state poker, so that the operators and their computers and payments processors will be physically here to be taxed and regulated.

The major obstacle is political. The same political and economic forces that allow us to even talk about legalizing Internet poker also stand in its way. There is so much legal gambling in the U.S. that allowing one more form is no big deal. But that also means there are well-established local operators who will fight to prevent outsiders from coming in to create new competition.

Each state will create its own formula for extracting as much money as possible without alienating existing local operators. Atlantic City casinos companies have enough money that there is no reason to open New Jersey online gambling to foreign bidders. In California there will be at least three licenses: one for a consortium of the state’s card clubs, the same for its gaming tribes, and at least one for an outside operator who can bring $200 million cash up front to the table.

Nevada casinos may want a federal law to prevent them having to compete against politically powerful local operators in 50 different states; 51 counting the District of Columbia. But the recent indictments and stalemates in Congress prove that the states are where the action is, and is going to be, until well after the 2012 election.

I know this is quiet long but I found it very interesting. !!

Online gaming legalization a hot topic. Where does Nevada fit in?

It’s time to retire the phrase “if Internet gambling is legalized.” By now, it’s clear that the approval of online wagering, particularly Internet poker, is not a matter of if but when.

For online poker enthusiasts, the timetable got pushed back in mid-April when 11 owners and founders of three of the largest online gambling sites, PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker, were indicted on bank fraud, money laundering and illegal gambling charges.

Speculation has been running wild on what the indictments will mean for the online gambling debate. Some say they will slow approval to a crawl, stopping the momentum that had built up in recent months toward legalization and regulation. Others say it’s just a bump in the road toward eventual approval.

Gaming industry leaders are confident that it’s only a matter of time before Internet gambling is legalized despite the indictments.

The question is whether Nevada will take a leadership role and reap the rewards of being first in line or sit on the sidelines and hope we get a piece of the action.

Based on the sorry state of Nevada’s economy, some think it’s time for the Silver State to cash in and take charge. The state took the bold step of becoming the first state to legalize gambling in 1930. Now, it’s time to decide on cyberspace.

Online gambling began around the turn of the century — yes, that’s the 21st century — with offshore operations on British dependencies and territories and on several Caribbean islands taking the lead.

As use of the Internet became more mainstream, countries worldwide drew their lines in the sand on applying the Internet to gambling. Australia prohibited online gambling companies from setting up there, but allowed citizens to play in 2001. Israel and Russia banned it. So did some states in India.

In the U.S., the debate intensified in 2003 when the Senate Banking Committee took testimony from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Malcolm about concerns the Justice Department had about money laundering through online casinos. That came on the heels of an appeals court ruling upholding that the federal Wire Act, which prohibited transmission of sports bets by phone, also applied to the Internet.

In 2006, the debate made national headlines when law enforcement agencies apprehended online gaming company executives as they traveled in the U.S.

And then, in September that year, industry executives were surprised when they learned lawmakers had passed legislation making bank transactions between online gambling sites and financial institutions illegal.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) “prohibits gambling businesses from knowingly accepting payments in connection with the participation of another person in a bet or wager that involves the use of the Internet and that is unlawful under any federal or state law.”

What irritated industry leaders was that it was attached to unrelated legislation designed to protect the nation’s ports, and had little debate because lawmakers were trying to get out of town to campaign for midterm elections. The bill was added at 9:30 p.m. and a reading of it was waived.

Industry leaders complained the act was vague and full of holes. It exempted fantasy sports games — a nod to the National Football League — allowed intrastate and intertribal transactions, didn’t address state lotteries and left the horse-racing industry wondering whether it was included.

When the regulations mandated by the act were released in November 2008, “unlawful Internet gambling” wasn’t even defined.

Meanwhile, state and federal lawmakers took several swings at codifying their vision of what Internet gambling should look like. And that’s part of the problem. Because the Internet knows no border, most casino industry executives think it best fits the definition of interstate commerce and therefore should be federally regulated instead of by states.

With its reputation for thoroughly understanding the gaming industry, Nevada was the first to approve an Internet gambling law in 2001, but all it did was establish a broad framework for online casinos setting up in the state.

Assembly Bill 466 defined who could be licensed and how much it would cost: $500,000 for the first two years and $250,000 a year thereafter in addition to the state’s standard 6.25 percent gaming tax on gross gaming revenue.

The state Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Gaming Commission were charged with establishing regulations to ensure that online casinos would be hacker-proof and adhere to all state policies on underage gambling, problem gambling and money laundering and that they could be “operated in compliance with all applicable laws.”

But state regulators didn’t want to draft rules until they were convinced that online gambling wouldn’t break any federal laws. State regulators thought they would just be spinning their wheels based on the Justice Department’s interpretation of the Wire Act.

California-based gaming attorney I. Nelson Rose applauded aspects of the Nevada legislation, but noted that lawmakers appeared to be clueless about what they were doing.

“The Legislature spelled out in detail how much tax it wanted to be paid by everyone associated with an Internet casino, even when it did not know exactly what those people actually do,” he wrote. “For example, a ‘manufacturer of interactive gaming systems’ will pay an initial fee of $125,000 for a license, while a ‘manufacturer of equipment associated with interactive gaming’ will pay only $50,000.

“What’s the difference? The Legislature hasn’t got a clue. AB466 requires the Nevada Gaming Commission to define ‘manufacturer of interactive gaming systems’ and all the rest.”

Other states also stepped into the fray.

In 2005, the North Dakota House approved a bill legalizing and regulating online poker, but the proposal died in the Senate.

Poker seemed to be the likeliest portal to legalized online gambling because it requires skill as well as luck and the players compete with each other and not against a casino. The revenue the casino gets — the rake — is the commission it receives for operating the game and that’s what would be taxed. Some envision player winnings taxed as personal income.

Poker players nationwide mobilized and pushed for the legalization of playing skill games online for money. Lawmakers, many of them poker players, introduced several bills.

In 2007, three pieces of online gambling bills were introduced. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., sought to modify UIGEA with the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act. Less than two months later, Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., introduced the Skill Game Protection Act specifically addressing the legalization of online poker, chess and bridge, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., filed the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act to outline a tax structure.

A year later, the first Senate bill appeared when Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., introduced the Internet Skill Game Licensing and Control Act addressing online poker.

The bills have had their requisite committee hearings and votes and have slogged through the process.

The most recent attempt to pass federal legislation came in December when Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader from Nevada, led an effort to legalize online gambling after some ardent Democratic supporters of online gaming were defeated in November elections and presumably wouldn’t have to answer to constituents in the lame-duck session.

Three Republican House members wrote Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to express opposition to the bill saying “Congress should not take advantage of the young, the weak and the vulnerable in the name of new revenues to cover more government spending.”

Admittedly, it was a last-ditch effort.

With those Republicans about to take leadership positions in the House, Reid thought he had nothing to lose.

The legislation failed.

If efforts by federal lawmakers haven’t caused confusion, legislators in several more states tried to stimulate the debate by drafting their own proposals. Some industry observers have theorized that states are pressing for Internet gambling legislation to force federal lawmakers to act.

In November, the New Jersey Legislature approved a bill legalizing online poker, casino games and slot machines and left a door open to future sports wagering. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie this year vetoed the bill and the Legislature didn’t have the votes to override him.

California has two online gambling bills legalizing intrastate poker play. The District of Columbia approved an online gaming bill widely reported as the first one to be approved, even though Nevada had its framework online gaming law on the books in 2001.

The D.C. law allows online poker and “games of chance” and wagering on fantasy sports. The D.C. Lottery would administer it, and officials expect the allowance could raise $13 million in a year.

Also this year, Assemblyman William Horne, D-Las Vegas, introduced an online poker bill. It directs the Gaming Commission to “adopt regulations and shall, to the extent that the applicants are suitable, grant licenses to operators of Internet poker and to manufacturers of interactive gaming systems, manufacturers of equipment associated with interactive gaming and interactive gaming service providers who provide services, software or equipment to operators of Internet poker.”

The Horne bill includes the boilerplate text on underage gambling, technical standards, license and tax fees, money laundering, cheating and collusion and standards governing the location, surveillance and security of all equipment.

The Poker Players Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of an estimated 1 million American online and brick-and-mortar players headed by former New York Sen. Alfonse D’Amato, was quick to back the Horne bill.

“To date, this bill represents the best possible approach to intrastate regulated Internet poker,” said John Pappas, the alliance’s executive director. “It contains many of the elements we have called for in other state and federal proposals. The bill is also geared to maximize economic growth in Nevada ... It will be hard for lawmakers to ignore the potential job creation and tax revenue.”

The bill, which has been approved by the Assembly Judiciary Committee and will go to the full Assembly, went through some heavy editing in April after it was learned that Horne and other lawmakers were flown to London by international web poker giant PokerStars. Legislative lawyers said the trip didn’t run afoul of state ethics laws, but Horne’s original proposal was modified to level the playing field for all companies interested in being licensed and established in Nevada and not to favor PokerStars, which had teamed up locally with gaming mogul Steve Wynn.

Then came Black Friday on April 15.

Justice Department prosecutors filed a money laundering complaint that seeks $3 billion being held by the companies.

The indictment indicated that owners of the poker websites in question found ways to get around restrictions placed on U.S. banks in UIGEA that prohibited them from handling online wagering transactions.

As soon as the indictment was announced, Wynn dissolved his alliance with PokerStars. So did Las Vegas locals giant Station Casinos, which had teamed up with Full Tilt Poker.

Many industry insiders don’t think Horne’s bill stands a chance of passage because it’s opposed by industry titans Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts International, which prefer federal legislation to the prospect of a patchwork of state laws.

But even Caesars and MGM have limits to their patience when the gravy train is at the station. Representatives say that if federal lawmakers can’t pass legislation, it must be left up to the states, and Nevada’s regulators are up to the task of setting the rules.

“The Internet’s is an interstate activity,” said Jan Jones, Caesars senior vice president of communications and government relations.

Part of the company’s strategy will be to show lawmakers how many companies operate illegally and how they’re affecting existing licensed properties in several states.

“People are just now beginning to understand the size of this illegal market,” she said.

Alan Feldman, Jones’ counterpart at MGM, envisions the federal government enabling states to put their own regulations in place or opting out if they choose to prohibit their citizens from gambling online.

“There’s no jurisdiction in the world that has the experience Nevada has,” Feldman said. “New Jersey has been doing it for a long time. Mississippi would be close by. But Nevada has a long and successful history of regulating gambling.”

The point man at the state Gaming Control Board is Mark Lipparelli, who was appointed chairman in December after serving as a member for two years. Earlier in his career, he was an executive at Bally Technologies and Shuffle Master Inc., so he gets technology.

Lipparelli said regardless of the state’s financial decline, it’s still one of the leading gaming markets of the world.

“I think that gets lost on people,” he said. “Everybody is always talking about how much Macau has grown and how much more dominant New Jersey and tribal gaming has become.”

Gaming regulators from around the world routinely seek Nevada’s expertise, but Lipparelli said it’s a two-way street and that his team also learns from counterparts in Alderney, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar where British regulators have overseen online gambling for years.

So what is driving the most recent burst of interest in legalizing online poker? Lipparelli said a big part of it is that big American companies are lining up partnerships with companies that have experience and expertise.

“You have to take these recent relationships as a pretty significant signal that something’s changed,” he said.

VEGAS INC, a sister publication of the Sun, is a sponsor of this week’s iGaming North America 2011 Spring Conference at the Monte Carlo. The conference, targeted at gaming industry leaders as well as law firms, financial institutions, regulators and technologists, is designed to present the most recent information on online gambling.

And Caesars Entertainment is on the online doorstep in its relationship with PokerStars rival 888 Holdings. The public got its first glimpse at how Nevada regulators view Internet gambling in March meetings of the Gaming Control Board and the Gaming Commission where regulators unanimously approved the suitability of the relationship.

The Control Board, the investigative half of Nevada’s two-tiered regulatory process, and the commission, the public-policy side, spent more than four hours questioning executives of Tel Aviv, Israel-based 888, which operates subsidiaries Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Ltd. and Fordart Ltd. in British territories and protectorates.

Caesars hasn’t spelled out what it plans to do with the relationship, but it’s clear that it has an outlet to market its World Series of Poker and is partnering with a company with the know-how, computer software and relationships to easily cater to U.S.-based online gamblers once its legal.

Mitch Garber, CEO of Caesars Interactive Entertainment, told regulators the company would use its World Series of Poker and Caesars brands in overseas markets through its relationship with 888. He added that Caesars chose to partner with 888 because it has online gaming hardware and software and that his company wouldn’t be writing its own programs.

After the Control Board meeting, Garber said it’s an important step toward the eventual legalization of Internet gambling in the United States.

“It was a historic moment,” Garber said. “It confirms that Internet gaming is a reality. It should allow us to look more and more at a federally regulated environment in the United States.”

Control Board members took great pains to explain that they only were approving Caesars’ relationship with the 888 subsidiaries and not recommending licensing them and that the end result wouldn’t have any effect on American consumers.

How 888 and its subsidiaries reacted to the eleventh-hour passage of UIGEA was a key part of testimony, which included closed-circuit televised comments from 888 CEO Gigi Levy from Tel Aviv.

Levy and 888 Nonexecutive Chairman Richard Kilsby explained to board members that before UIGEA was passed, company executives thought they could take bets from U.S. gamblers because the location where the bet was placed in Gibraltar was regulated and the U.S. had no laws in place banning the taking of wagers.

Levy and Kilsby told the Control Board that the 888 board of directors and compliance officers met the Sunday after the House passed the legislation and before President George W. Bush signed it into law to consider what to do about the company’s online presence in the U.S.

The board opted to announce a decision the next day to remove access to U.S. customers, resulting in an immediate drop in revenue and causing the company’s stock to plummet.

“The words and actions of 888 were clear,” company attorney Michael Horowitz said. “The company has a commitment to doing what is right and doing what is legal” despite the damage to revenue generation.

The company also trumpeted the efforts of its compliance team and its technologists in developing software to assure identities and locations of online users and for its stances on addressing problem and underage gambling.

Regulators asked whether the easy accessibility of Internet casinos would increase of addictive gambling behavior. The two sides of that debate, with proponents of “gaming is entertainment” on one side and problem gambling awareness advocates on the other, will certainly play out the same way it has been played out for decades.

That’s where the battle lines will be drawn when the Internet debate reaches the U.S. House and Senate.

Is it bad public policy — even immoral — for the government to sanction an activity that has a destructive effect on 5 percent of the population believed to suffer from compulsive gambling disorders? Is it, as Mitch McConnell said, that the passage of online gaming would prey on “the young, the weak and the vulnerable in the name of new revenues to cover more government spending?”

Then there’s the argument isn’t it also bad public policy — possibly immoral — for the government to ban an activity that 95 percent of the population can responsibly enjoy or passively ignore and could generate revenue that would help solve the many problems the government can’t afford? Is it any different from the many state lotteries that have helped build libraries, rec and senior citizen centers and schools and purchased textbooks and paid teachers across the country?

Bet on it being a nasty fight.

Update: Iowa Poker Referendum Bill Ready for the Governor´s Desk

The new, watered bill produces many changes

It was reported this week that a legalization proposal bill that was reduced to the level of a study of online poker in Iowa, has passed both Senate and House (on a 72-21 vote on Tuesday), and is now ready for the governor´s desk. Iowa governor Terry Branstad hasn´t revealed any of his intentions about the bill, and he has kept the open mind about it.

The state representative Peter Cownie, one who supported the bill from the beginning said, “I’m pleased with what we were able to pass. I was really pleased that we were able to get a lot of those groups in agreement - the horse breeders, the tracks, all the different interests.”

According to the bill, Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission has to study and make a report on Internet gambling for congressmen by December 1, 2011. Also, one of the changes involves the law which proscribes that every eight years, after a review, voters on a referendum decide whether casinos continue to exist or not. Under this legislation, the referendum would be organized only if 10% of the residents who voted in the previous presidential or gubernatorial election sign the petition asking for it. This bill also helps closing of the deals between the state´s many horse breeders and race tracks about finances and enables the state to implement a system for advanced wagering like placing bets on upcoming horse races via computer or over the phone.

I don't really see this as progressing too much since it was reduced to a study of online poker. Would love to ask them what is there to study? And why would that have to be voted on. It seems pretty clear that the states could profit from this. And more then likely half of them have played themselves  LOL LOL

It would be nice to allow the racing industry to have online wagering. It has slowly suffered and i hope some changes are made there among all the states. It's a long time sport i would hate to see die.

Thanks for the article Blue was very informative.

Lips

It's going to be a long slow process by the looks of it LIps and I truly can understand how frustrating this is.  I get frustrated and I'm UK.  I don't think that they understand the impact these laws have on poker players across the globe.  It truly does affect us all even though it may not seem like it.  The lawmakers know the value of online gambling to the USA - it runs to billions and I think this is what will sway them to regulation and legalize it.

I remember the big initial bang back in 2006 and I hated the fact that USA players were not allowed at the sites that I played at.  Now it's happened all over again and it makes me angry to even think about it.  "No USA" affects me for one and I'm sure I'm not alone.  The poker sites are not the same without USA...they never have been and they never will be and now it just got worse with the loss of 4 big sites on Black Friday.  I hope this changes as soon as possible and USA law makers recognise that poker is a skill and not just luck (albeit that there is a small element of luck) and I believe that they will be making their decisions based upon this fact and the amount of dollars that can be put into the government coffers.

I could rant on but I won't.

blue

Costa Rica Raids Trigger Blanca Games’ Comment

Were enforcements agents after former associates?

After reports of visits paid by Costa Rica enforcement agents of the Organismo de Investigaciones Judiciales to the offices of a number of online gambling companies involved in the U.S. federal indictments, one of the companies that seemed to suffer the biggest impact was Blanca Games, but according to the company’s statement, the raid was not directed at it or its subsidiaries.

Namely, it was stated that "Blanca can confirm that Costa Rican officials visited the office of Innovative Data Solutions (“IDS”), the former customer service centre of Absolute Poker and UB in Costa Rica.”

"The Organismo de Investigaciones Judiciales (“OIJ”) took action yesterday to further their investigation of Olman Rimola, the owner of IDS, Scott Tom, who was also recently named in the indictment list issued by the Department of Justice on April 15th, and a third lesser known party, Oldemar Vargas.

"The reported OIJ ‘raids’ of IDS and various associated private residential addresses were in relation to their search for Rimola, Tom and Vargas, and do not involve Blanca or the operations of Absolute Poker or UB," it was stressed.

Besides, it was underlined that Blanca wants to deny the rumors and speculation triggered by the events in Costa Rica, which were connected to the Black Friday indictments in the United States.

"Our understanding is that this is not the case, and that they were driven by local investigations of a separate matter in Costa Rica that involves a concerted effort to locate and apprehend Rimola, Tom and Vargas for questioning in relation to a money laundering investigation.”

In addition, the Blanca statement claims that the company has terminated its supplier contract with IDS, suspecting that their manager Rimola had misappropriated money intended for staff severance packages.

In related news, the allegedly leaked email exchanges between Rimola and Cereus chief executive Paul Leggett confirm Blanca’s statement, as they depict the situation between the two executives arguing over $2 750 000 in severance payments.

"I will go to the US Embassy and I will contact FBI agents, who are right now in in Costa Rica, and I will reveal all the information I have of Absolute Poker and UltimateBet operations, including full detail of original shareholders, related companies, lawyers, executives, bank statements, bank wires,corporate structure, processing procedures, all emails and instructions I have received, etc.," Rimola reportedly wrote in one of the emails.

"FBI will be more than glad in to grant me immunity exchanging this information… Just a reminder, if anything happens to me, or people close to me, I have prepared 3 sets of this information which are in hands of 3 different lawyers, with instructions to proceed with US Embassy and Costa Rican authorities."

In another email, he threatens: "Next Tuesday, I will close IDS; if you send the money the closing down will be done without any problem. If you do not send the money I will proceed as I mentioned before.

"And if you try to misinform or slander me with my employees, I will proceed too.

"I am very serious this time."

The emails were allegedly dated late April.

Do The States Impose More Online Censorship?

This time Homeland Security pushes the limits of its authorities

During the weekend, the industry started buzzing about reported censorship attempt made by the US government's Homeland Security department, which raised the question of the range of the department's authority.

Allegedly, the department requested the popular software developer Mozilla, which offers the popular Firefox internet browser, to remove an add-on that enables users to access websites whose domains were seized by the government for copyright infringement. The add-on in question redirects traffic from seized domains to other domains outside the jurisdictional reach of the United States.

Apparently, at the moment, Mozilla's legal representatives are in a serious discussion with the department, about its MafiaaFire add-on, and it was revealed by the company that the department has been asked to give reasons for its request. Still, no response has come so far to Mozilla’s questions, which include whether the government considers the add-on unlawful and whether Mozilla is “legally obligated” to remove it. In addition, the company has not been provided with a court order for the removal of the add-on, it was specified.

Specifically, Mozilla’s lawyer Harvey Anderson stated: “One of the fundamental issues here is under what conditions do intermediaries accede to government requests that have a censorship effect and which may threaten the open internet.”

Apart from the Black Friday and other domain seizure disputes in the States, it seems that the U.S. government conducted an antipiracy initiative “Operation in Our Sites” which resulted in the seizure of at least 120 domains, all taken under the same federal statute used to seize drug houses. However, in an attempt to save their businesses, the owners of the seized domains redirected the sites to domains hosted where the United States cannot legally touch them.

Reply

AGA CEO Speaks in Favor of Online Gambling Regulation in the U.S.

US Justice Department receives support for law enforcement

In an op-ed article issued this week, CEO of the American Gaming Association (AGA), Frank Fahrenkopf, gave a strong support to regulation of online gambling in the U.S., stressing: "Americans like to gamble online. Millions of Americans bet billions of dollars a year at offshore foreign websites and have demonstrated that they will do so even if their government tells them it is illegal.”

“However, many of the websites offering these activities have been in direct violation of U.S. law. They have been run by individuals who, according to the Justice Department, engaged in serious criminal activity, including bank fraud and money-laundering.”

He also pointed out: “The American Gaming Association supports strong law enforcement oversight and applauds the Justice Department for bringing charges against those companies that have shown no respect for the laws of the United States.”

“The federal government’s indictment of the individuals who operate three major online poker companies was the right course of action, but if we’ve learned anything in the five years since UIGEA passed, it is that law enforcement alone can’t protect the millions of Americans that continue to take part in Internet gaming.”

It was added in the article: “Even after the indictments, players will and are finding ways to gamble online. In fact, in the immediate aftermath of online poker’s “Black Friday,” the companies that continue to operate in the U.S., in spite of the law, saw a surge in new business. As we speak, there are more than 1,000 real-money websites operated by nearly 300 offshore operators that are still targeting the U.S. market. It’s just further proof that offshore operators will continue to cater to demand and develop new techniques to circumvent the barriers we put in place.”

“Moreover, online gaming operators who fill this void will be even less regulated and less trustworthy than their predecessors, which will only hurt American consumers.”

“That’s why we need to use this moment to create a safe, regulated online gaming experience.”

“With a few minor changes in existing legislation, Congress can create thousands of new jobs almost immediately and raise at least $20 billion in new tax revenues over the next decade. Amendments to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) can clarify the law and also ensure that foreign companies will no longer have the incentive to blatantly ignore U.S. law.”

In regards to the Association’s position, he stressed that “the AGA supports the licensing and regulation of online poker in the United States because we know U.S.-licensed gaming companies, following proven and rigorous gaming regulations, will provide safe, honest and responsible sites for the use of the men and women who want to play online poker. It will also protect Americans from unscrupulous operators and bring the jobs and revenues associated with this billion-dollar industry back to the U.S.”

“The creation of the infrastructure to support this industry will generate an estimated 10,000 high-tech jobs; jobs that our country desperately needs right now. Once a well-designed system is in place, legal, regulated online poker will generate $2 billion in tax revenue every year. That is money that will go back into American communities to help fund schools, fix roads and provide medical care. That is money that will help Americans everywhere.”

“Years of experience with regulated online gambling in the horseracing and lottery sectors in this country, and with legalized online gambling in Western Europe and Canada, have demonstrated that regulatory tools have evolved and that the technology now exists to protect minors and consumers and ensure the integrity of the games. In fact, 85 countries around the world have opted to legalize online gambling.”

“The federal government can and should set standards to ensure that only the states where a strict regulatory structure exists will be able to issue a license and regulate online poker. The industry can provide tools that allow customers with gambling problems to limit their gambling, or self-exclude themselves entirely from online gambling. Age-verification technology can prevent minors from gambling online. Through the use of IP tracking technology, we can exclude bets from states and jurisdictions where online gambling is illegal. And we can prevent money laundering with careful screening and auditing of online transactions,” he added.

In conclusion, he assessed: “In short, we can do this.”

“By passing legislation that removes the current ambiguity of UIGEA and provides a strong regulatory framework that preserves states’ rights to determine what gambling options are available to their residents, Congress can eliminate the problems presented by inconsistent regulatory and legal practices.”

“The licensing and regulation of online gambling – coupled with strong enforcement of the law – is the only way to capture the jobs and public revenues it generates, to closely control any social risks it might post and stop the cycle of illegal activity in the U.S. once and for all."

Did you all rush to get the Mozilla add-on?

blue

No,but maybe I should !! 8'| ;)

Is Poker a Game of Skill?

Freakonomics author claims it is

A new working paper was presented recently by Professor Steven Levitt, a University of Chicago economics professor and author of bestseller Freakonomics and his fellow Professor Thomas Miles. The paper titled "The Role of Skill Versus Luck in Poker: Evidence from the World Series of Poker," analyzes the 2010 World Series of Poker, concluding that there is significant evidence that poker is indeed a game of skill.

The main reasoning behind this conclusion lies in the fact that players who were assumed to be skilled earned 30 percent on their investment in the tournament, whereas all other players lost 15 percent. This means that, not counting the highly-skilled "Main Event," high skill players earned an average of $350 per tournament, while other players lost $400 on average.

To illustrate things better, the two professors claim that the world's top poker players possess similar levels of skill as Major League Baseball players and that "state courts that have ruled on whether poker is a game of skill-versus-luck generally have done so in the absence of any statistical evidence".

We kinda knew that already :) ;).It would be nice if others could see it this way,like the DOJ but it's our secret :-X...wouldn't want the federalies knocking on my door !! LOL ;)

We kinda knew that already :) ;).It would be nice if others could see it this way,like the DOJ but it's our secret :-X...wouldn't want the federalies knocking on my door !! LOL ;)

LOL so true Rose.

Did you get that add-on by the way?  I'd like to hear whether it works or not.

blue

U.S. Land Poker Room Going Online?

California's Commerce Casino shows great interest in online possibilities?

It was reported this week that California's land Commerce Casino has serious online plans. Namely, the company has already started exploring the possibilities through alliances with Indian tribal gambling entities in online poker legalization drives, but it also started building a base of online players through Facebook.

So far it has launched a $50+$10 Facebook Fan Exclusive No-Limit Hold'em Poker Tournament, the first event of the kind that will be held online until May 21 with a prize pool of $10 000. The tournament will reportedly be open only to those who have "Liked" Commerce Casino on Facebook, and it will provide technology prizes to the first and second place finishers.

According to the casino manager Jeff Harris, "We are very excited about being able to demonstrate to Commerce Casino's Facebook fans how much we appreciate their support. At Commerce, we like to keep our tournament schedule filled with unique new offerings and this Exclusive Facebook Fan tourney fits right in."

Hummmmmmmm,I wonder if they'll try to bust them too???Thanks for the info blue.

Hummmmmmmm,I wonder if they'll try to bust them too???Thanks for the info blue.

Yes - I have to say, I wondered the same however, the important bit here is "alliances with Indian tribal gambling entities"...  Based on that, I don't think anything would happen to them.

blue

Update: New Wave for Online Poker Legalization in California

Correa adds impetus to his proposal

This week’s news from the Golden State report that Senator Lou Correa, who drafted California bill SB40, has amended the proposal to urgency status, so the state can “act quickly to secure potential online poker revenues before the opportunity is lost”.

This status change implies that the bill will remain active and retain the right to progress through this year’s state legislative cycle without being subject to legislative committee deadlines. However, the urgency status process must be signed off by the governor of California, and only then will it come into effect.

According to Senator Correa, whose bill seems to have a wider support than the bill proposed by Senator Rod Wright: “With federal action looming and the market wide open, we have to quickly authorize online poker in California. To delay will mean the loss of more than $1.4 billion in new state revenue at a time when it is severely needed.”

The numbers mentioned are derived by a study conducted by former state finance director Tim Gage, which predicted a 47 percent increase over previous estimates due to the Black Friday effects. It has been specified that Correa's bill would extend the state’s existing poker regulations to the Internet and authorize five online poker sites.

Namely, the first three sites would be launched as soon as they receive license from the Bureau of Gambling Control, whereas the other two sites would be released within three years of the launch of online poker.

In addition, the bill envisages that California's main gaming partners - tribes and card clubs - should be eligible to operate online poker, either cooperating with each other or individually. Also, there will be no "online poker cafes" and all illegal operation and play of online poker in California will receive penalties which have been modified in the new amendments to the bill.

It was assessed by advocates of a state legalization path that another legalization initiative presented recently, that of California Congressional Representative John Campbell which presents a federal gaming legislation, would lead California jobs and revenues out of the state.

Specifically, Sen. Correa stated: "California must act and act quickly to control its future. It is in the state's best interest to harness the collective strength of our established and trusted gaming partners to maximize the benefit to California."

Doyle Brunson Leaves DoylesRoom

The legendary poker pro, Doyle Brunson, has left Doylesroom

“Reluctantly, I have decided to terminate my endorsement contract with Doylesroom

It pains me to leave at this time. I have aspirations of reentering the online poker business when the United States Government passes legislation, that officially legalize online poker sites.

Doylesroom management has decided to continue to serve U.S. customers.

Although they believe they have the right to market the name Doylesroom and to use my name and likeness for a period of time, I have asked them not to.  Good luck-Shuffle up and deal.”

Hmmm...I wonder how they will be able to keep the poker room named  after his name or will they change it ???

Doyle's Room without Doyle ??? Doesn't seem seem right does it. I'm glad he's sticking up for us players from the US :)

It will cost them customers I would think. 

blue

Assembly OKs stripped-down online poker bill

The state Assembly on Thursday passed a stripped-down Internet gambling bill calling for the state to develop a licensing process for online poker businesses, a month after the U.S. industry melted down amid federal indictments.

Members of the Assembly unanimously passed the measure, which calls on Nevada regulators to design rules that would only take effect after the federal government legalizes online gambling. It now goes to the Senate, and the sponsor said he expects it will pass on that side.

Online gambling has been mired anew in controversy since the U.S. Justice Department indicted executives of three top online poker sites April 15, charging them with violating federal law. The sites have been shut down to U.S. players.

"It highlights that there's a need," said Assemblyman William Horne, D-Las Vegas, whose committee sponsors the bill.

The bill was backed by PokerStars, one of the companies targeted by the federal government, and originally called for the legalization of online poker in Nevada.

But a policy committee cut the boldest elements of the bill four days before the federal indictments became public.

Now, the bill calls for the Nevada Gaming Commission to develop regulations and a path to licensure for online gambling businesses by January 2012 and keep them in the can so they're ready "the day the (federal) law passes," Horne said.

Just received email Bookmaker.com has not been seized!

Anyone know if any other sites have gone down as well???

Oh darn...the site obviously has been seized but claimed not to be and assuring players not to worry...

Thanks blue for the update and I really hope there will be no more sites get shut down. :(

There's another sportsbook been seized - Diamond Sportsbook which also means that the poker site BetDSI has also gone.  I have received an email from the poker site:

Dear Player,

As you already may know, BetDSI has temporarily lost rights to the 2BetDSI.com domain. We are confident that in time, it will be returned to us, until then, we have launched a new, temporary site. http://www.betdsi.com/

Despite having lost the domain, none of the business operations have otherwise been affected. Player account balances and information are safe and secure. Effective immediately, players can log on to http://www.betdsi.com/ and it is business as usual.

You likely won't notice any other changes at all and will experience all the same features and benefits as our original site, just on a new address.

In addition to our alternative website as we have informed we also have the downloadable application which includes the full sportsbook , racebook, casino and poker. By downloading our client you will always have access to all our products.

We sincerely apologize if you were affected by our interruption. As always, if you have any questions or concerns please call our customer service department at             1-877-223-8374      .

Update: PPA Chairman D’Amato Concerned about the Poker Players’ Rights

Supporters of online poker express their objections at the Capitol

Following the latest enforcement actions against internet gaming e-cash processors and gambling domains, the Poker Players Alliance arrived to Washington DC yesterday attracting the spotlight and gaining wide mainstream-media coverage.

The statement given by the PPA chairman and the former New York senator, Alfonse D'Amato, expressing concerns about the recent developments was reported by both Hill and The Washington Times.

"We’re deeply concerned about losing our rights. It’s about rights of what you can do in your own home on your own time,” D’Amato said, explaining that the Washington rally was an attempt to represent the 10 million online poker players in US, and reiterate their call for regulation and licensing of online poker.

According to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., the Department of Justice crackdown on April 15th aimed at reinforcing the UIGEA, Washington Times reports.

On the other hand, PPA directors claim that instead of being subject of prohibitionary actions, the business worth $6 billion per year should be regulated so as to ensure customer protection.

The Washington Times reported that over 50 protesters attempted to urge the legislators in Congress to take steps towards legalizing online poker.

“Ease The Debt, Let Us Bet!”read a sign showed by Daniel Alexander, a protester from New York, who added that “… poker could be an outlet for taxation. Tax and regulation could help ease the U.S. debt crisis a great deal”.

Among the protesters were also the Republican representatives Joe Barton of Texas and John Campbell of California, who are involved in promoting legislation to clarify the laws allowing online poker in their respective states.

“When we had the indictments a month or so ago, people in my district were affected greatly,” Barton said underlining that poker should be legalized as it is not a game of chance, but a game of skill.

Representative Campbell warned that the recent crackdowns would force online poker players to use foreign-based sites or underground offer, thus risking consumer protection.

“It’s about consumer protection. When people play on foreign sites … you don’t know what’s going on. We need to protect that consumer, protect that player, protect that person,” he told the Washington Times.

According to Linda Johnson, a professional poker player, the government decision had been devastating for her both at the financial and personal level.

“It’s not just a loss of a source of income. It’s my hobby, my passion. I travel over 200 days of the year, and at night in my hotel room I love to play online poker. And I often play it at home. How can they prohibit a game you can play in your own home?”

According to Linda Johnson, a professional poker player, the government decision had been devastating for her both at the financial and personal level.

“It’s not just a loss of a source of income. It’s my hobby, my passion. I travel over 200 days of the year, and at night in my hotel room I love to play online poker. And I often play it at home. How can they prohibit a game you can play in your own home?”

:'( :'( :'( I feel and hear her so well...

This is getting so beyond wrong and unfair...makes me sick. >:(

Update: Senate Passes Nevada Bill

Is legalization getting closer?

It has been reported at the beginning of the week that the U.S. State of Nevada saw the state Senate approve a measure ordering the Nevada Gaming Commission to prepare regulations for the advent of online poker once federal legalization is passed, and that the voting was almost unilateral: 19 - 2, with two Las Vegas senators, Republicans Barbara Cegavske and Elizabeth Halseth, opposing it. With this approval, the measure will now be sent back to the Assembly.

It has been stated by one of the pro-oriented senators, Valerie Wiener that Congress first must pass legislation allowing online poker in the United States, or the Justice Department must withdraw its current view that it is illegal. She also assessed that the adoption of such regulations would make Nevada a pioneer among the U.S. states, adding that the bill enjoys quite a support from land gambling companies in the state.

In conclusion, Senator Wiener specified that the taxation for online poker operators would be the same as for other games, and that in case the federal government introduced a similar tax, this one would be waived.

Update: Full Tilt Poker Assures Players that They Are to Get Paid

Online poker giant needs to raise capital

“Is Full Tilt Poker in big trouble?” This is a question asked by many industry observers, as well as players who have constantly been assured that they would get their remaining account balances very soon. The company definitely seems to be going through an extremely tough period, as it has also recently stated that it is in the process of raising funds to pay its players.

In addition, it is quite possible that the players from non-U.S. markets haven’t been compensating for the closure of one of the companies major focuses after the federal actions in the States over a month ago.

The numbers reported recently show a serious decline, as well: with this week’s seven day average going down to 8 900 players, and another 7 percent drop in traffic, Full Tilt Poker is quite far from what it was prior to Black Friday. And whether it will manage to get out of this rough period stronger, it remains to be seen.

Tiltware LLC Faces Ivey’s Lawsuit

Unsettled player accounts subject of the suit

The industry was abuzz this week with the announcement made by a respectable poker pro Phil Ivey, who’s also a part of Team Full Tilt, that he has electronically filed a lawsuit against Tiltware LLC, the software provider and marketing company behind Full Tilt Poker due to unsettled player accounts.

The statement reads: "I am deeply disappointed and embarrassed that Full Tilt players have not been paid money they are owed. I am equally embarrassed that as a result many players cannot compete in tournaments and have suffered economic harm. I am not playing in the World Series of Poker as I do not believe it is fair that I compete when others cannot. I am doing everything I can to seek a solution to the problem as quickly as possible.”

“My name and reputation have been dragged through the mud, through the inactivity and indecision of others and on behalf of all poker players I refuse to remain silent any longer. I have electronically filed a lawsuit against Tiltware related to the unsettled player accounts. As I am sure the public can imagine, this was not an easy decision for me.”

“I whole heartedly refuse to accept non-action as to repayment of players funds and I am angered that people who have supported me throughout my career have been treated so poorly.”

“I sincerely hope this statement will ignite those capable of resolving the problems into immediate action and would like to clarify that until a solution is reached that cements the security of all players, both US and International, I will, as I have for the last six weeks, dedicate the entirety of my time and efforts to finding a solution for those who have been wronged by the painfully slow process of repayment". 

Update: Ivey Not Complaining Only About Players’ Unpaid Balances?

Court documents reveal something else

According to the latest reports regarding the lawsuit filed electronically by Phil Ivey against Full Tilt Poker parent Tiltware, there’s more reason for the suit than just unpaid Full Tilt players’ balances.

Namely, as Clark County court documents have become available, it was revealed that the lawsuit claims over $150 million in damages to Ivey's personal and professional reputation, alleging that Tiltware has denied his request to pursue other professional relationships in poker.

It has been specified by Ivey's lawyer David Chesnoff that, his career being in bloom at the moment, Ivey wants to be able to take up new challenges and opportunities as they emerge. He also repeated Ivey’s previous statement that Full Tilt owes its players about $150 million but failed to maintain a large enough reserve account to return the funds, which makes himself feel embarrassed.

In his statement, Ivey also said that he will refrain from playing at World Series of Poker this year because "I do not believe it is fair that I compete when others cannot," referring to the Black Friday actions in the U.S.

Update: Ivey Lawsuit Triggers Tiltware’s Response

The situation gets more serious

The lawsuit filed by poker pro Phil Ivey against Full Tilt’s parent company Tiltware didn’t seem to worry the online poker giant. On the opposite, the company appears to be in the mood for a fight, judging by the statement it made on June 1:

“Contrary to his sanctimonious public statements, Phil Ivey’s meritless lawsuit is about helping just one player – himself. In an effort to further enrich himself at the expense of others, Mr. Ivey appears to have timed his lawsuit to thwart pending deals with several parties that would put money back in players’ pockets.

"In fact, Mr. Ivey has been invited -- and has declined -- to take actions that could assist the company in these efforts, including paying back a large sum of money he owes the site.

"Tiltware doubts Mr. Ivey’s frivolous and self-serving lawsuit will ever get to court. But if it does, the company looks forward to presenting facts demonstrating that Mr. Ivey is putting his own narrow financial interests ahead of the players he professes to help.”

According to recent reports, one of the reasons for Ivey’s lawsuit is the company’s refusal to free the poker pro from his sponsorship commitments.

Update: US Department of Justice Claims No Accounts Have Been Unfrozen

Full Tilt claims something else

According to the latest announcement from the US Department of Justice, no accounts have been unfrozen in order to enable the companies indicted in the Black Friday actions to payout their US players’ balances. The statement was reportedly made to deny claims that certain accounts have actually been unfrozen.

Namely, it was specified by the US Attorney’s Office spokeswoman that any action related to unfreezing of the accounts would be announced in an official press release – none of which appeared so far.

On the other side, a source from one of the impacted companies, Full Tilt Poker, claimed that one of the company's Irish corporate bank accounts that had not been the subject of the US indictments had been frozen by the bank, and that the US enforcement authorities had contacted the bank to get the account in question freed, which has been done by now.

The US Attorney’s Office couldn’t confirm this claim, whereas The Bank of Ireland refused to comment.

Asked whether the indicted companies’ accounts will be unfrozen in order to facilitate players’ payouts, the US Attorney's Office spokeswomen said that she is "unable to speculate about future events."

Update: Competitive Enterprise Institute Criticizes US Actions Against Online Poker

Internet freedom jeopardized, claims the organization

Another organization joined the wave of severe criticism of the US enforcement agencies’ actions against online poker in the country. Namely, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), an organization dedicated to "free markets and limited government" assessed that the shutdown of the US operations of three foreign-based online poker websites "has made a mockery of America's stated commitment to Internet freedom."

The seizure of the three online poker giants’ domains on April 15 was assessed by the organization as a move that impacted online gambling operations in nations where Internet poker is lawful and the U.S. government has no jurisdiction.

It was underlined in the CEI’s statement that "federal agents obtained a court order that compelled Verisign, the operator of the .com registry, to reroute the poker sites' domain names to a government page featuring intimidating federal logos notifying users of the seizure. Therefore no computer in the world, even those in countries where poker is explicitly legal, could access the internet poker sites via their [original] domain names."

Still, there’s a chance for the companies to challenge the US action at the World Trade Organization through a friendly WTO member nation, such as Antigua, which has already been successful in WTO issues with the USA over online gambling.

In any case, the CEI finds it "deeply troubling that the United States, a country that purports to value individual freedom, has so miserably failed to protect it when it comes to politically incorrect pursuits like online gambling."

"The DOJ's heavy-handed tactics should outrage anybody who values freedom and individual rights," the CEI concluded

Update: Latest News from QuickTender

Online payment processor claims its funds have been seized by feds

The situation with well-known and widely used e-cash processor QuickTender has quickly become an object of player concern, thanks to the fact that its Chargestream accounts in the Netherlands were identified in recent US federal enforcement documents as connected with the drive against online payment processors accused of dealing in 'illegal' online gambling transactions. Therefore, in order to update its customers and the online gambling community in general, the company issued a statement, claiming:

"The management of QuickTender would like to give an update on the status of QuickTender account balance.

"Contrary to some speculation in the forums here and elsewhere, certain funds of QuickTender have indeed been subject to a seizure order by the US authorities.

"We hope to advise those affected in the near future on the status of these funds. The funds were withheld from our processor, ChargeStream Ltd and the action is a matter that is in the public domain.

"Whilst not all of our funds are affected, a significant amount has been.

"QuickTender is a reputable organisation, and we wish to ensure so far as we can that our account holders do not lose their funds in our care.

"We are looking at how we can release funds to our account holders as soon as possible, however because of current restrictions we are unable to transmit any funds in USD.

"In order for customers to have their balances refunded, at present they will need to have a currency account in Euros as we currently cannot make any payments into any USD denominated accounts.  If you do not have an account in Euros we would urge you to obtain one in order to receive your funds.

"At the end of this week QuickTender aims to advise further on enabling withdrawal of funds from your QuickTender Account.

"Please bear with us in these difficult times as we endeavour to resolve the situation despite the severe limitations we face."

No Bail for Black Friday Indictee

Rubin to remain in prison

It seems like the US authorities, including the U.S. Magistrate Judge James L. Cott have decided to put an end to illegitimate online gambling in the country, and for that matter, one of the eleven persons indicted in the Black Friday actions, a U.S. citizen Ira Rubin (52) has been denied bail at a detention hearing this week.

Rubin is facing charges with nine counts, including conspiracy to violate the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act in connection with Pokerstars, Full Tilt and Absolute Poker, and it was specified by the Assistant U.S. attorney Arlo Devlin-Brown that he helped recruit people and setup phony websites to serve as payment processors for the online poker companies, but also "processed hundreds of millions of dollars in payments himself."

In addition, at the hearing Federal Prosecutors presented evidence that Rubin fled the U.S. in 2008 on an unrelated telemarketing-fraud charge and allegedly chartered a plane from Costa Rica to Guatemala on the day the indictment was issued where "he could easily obtain a fake passport".

In a comment on this, Stuart D. Meissner, Ira Rubin's lawyer stated: "I do think this entire case is a little bit of an over-kill. We will fight the charges."

Whoa....1 mil buy in? It seems a bit crazy but one thing is clear that they are heading for a great cause.

The only thing what bothers me is that it doesn't seems fair that these people will be recognized as the best players in the world because they can afford the buy-in...not saying they are not great players but...

The World Series of Poker announced that it is adding a new $1 million buy-in poker tournament as part of the 43rd Annual World Series of Poker on July 1, 2012 to benefit ONE DROP, a non-governmental organization aiming to fight poverty worldwide by supporting access to water and raising each and every one’s awareness of water-related issues.

The No-Limit Hold'em tournament has 15 confirmed players, including poker pros Johnny Chan, Tom Dwan, Patrik Antonius, Gus Hansen, Daniel Negreanu and Tony G. Treasure Island owner Phil Ruffin and Cirque du Soleil founder Guy Laliberte have also confirmed they will play, as well as billionaire Andy Bea

The tournament will take place at the Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino on July 1, 2012 and will be structured as a three-day tournament.

The event intends to take a maximum of 48 players, and 20 percent of the field will be paid out.

The winner of the tournament will be awarded a specially-designed WSOP platinum bracelet, as long as at least 22 participants are entered in the event.

The tournament will donate 11.1 percent of its proceeds to ONE DROP, a Montreal-based charity founded by Laliberte that tries to fight poverty by providing access to safe water.

"A million dollar buy-in seems crazy, and well, it is, but when you factor in a great cause like ONE DROP getting a percentage of the prize pool, all of a sudden it seems like a fantastic idea, and a great way to raise money for charity," said Negreanu. "Count me in."

"I am buying in," Dwan added. "$1 million has a nice ring to it. It's so sick, and for such a good cause, now I just gotta win."

Earlier this year, the Aussie Millions hosted a $250,000 event at the Aussie Millions. Until Thursday's WSOP announcement, this was the largest known buy-in for a poker tournament. Twenty people entered the tournament, which was won by Erik Seidel. Seidel won $2.5 million for taking first place.

Spurce:WSOP NEWS.

One-Million Online Poker Badbeat Jackpot at IPN

Record level for GTech G2's International Poker Network

It was announced by GTechG2's Internaional Poker Network this week that its Bad Beat Jackpot has hit record levels, currently amounting to around Euro 750,000 (over one million US dollars).

The jackpot will be awarded to a player who gets a hand of Quad 10’s or higher and have it bested on one of the network's Bad Beat Jackpot tables, thus earning some Euro 250,000. In addition, the bad beat player’s fellow tablers will also win over Euro16,000.

Prior to this, the highest bad beat jackpot sum at IPN was Euro 600,000, a company spokesman stressed, adding that the network includes operators such as VirginPoker.com, PokerHeaven.com, MermaidPoker.com and SportingBet.com.

Thank you for the info and sign me up for both LOL :-[ :P

The State of Nevada Is Ready for Online Poker

Governor Brian Sandoval signs two bills: AB258 and AB294

Federal legalization of online poker in the United States could be introduced even this year, and the state of Nevada is readily waiting for it thanks to two bills signed into state law on Friday by Governor Brian Sandoval. The signing of the online poker regulation happened after positive movements in the country that included collaboration between Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and Texas Congressman Joe Barton on internet poker legalization initiative, which was supported by the PPA, John Campbell and Congressmen Barney Frank.

Authorized by William Horne, the first signed assembly bill AB 258 will, very probably, attract attention of the community because it guides the Nevada Gaming Commission to make new regulations and conditions in anticipation of the federal legalization of online poker. The bill has a strong support thanks to the removal of the clauses concerning the recently banned Pokerstars and a new revenue stream.

The second bill AB294 is important because it regulates wireless gambling at Nevada resort casinos and also permits the use of mobile gaming devices in all sleeping areas like hotel rooms. Both bills were well received, but AB294 didn’t have any real opposition, while AB258 had only two opposing votes.

Update: More Troubles for Full Tilt

Gowen’s appeal against dismissal by Full Tilt Poker parent approved

The situation in which Full Tilt Poker found itself after Black Friday just keeps getting worse. This week, the bad trend continued with the reappearance of a litigation against its parent group Tiltware LLC, initiated by woman poker pro Clonie Gowen.

Namely, a US circuit court of appeal this week ruled that a lower court was wrong when it dismissed Gowen’s lawsuit against Tiltware, which involved allegations of wrongful dismissal by Gowen as a former member of Full Tilt's professional player team, as well as a breach of contract and other grievances against Full Tilt founders Ray Bitar and Howard Lederer. It has therefore made way for the case to be reopened.

Update: Shortlived Online Gambling in Washington DC?

Washington DC Council’s decision to be reviewed

Reports came this week that the Washington DC Council’s decision to allow internet gambling in the district may be short-lived, mostly due to the councilors’ suspicion of the motives of the original proposer of the plan, Michael A. Brown.

Namely, they are suggesting that the plan needs to be fully inspected, including Brown's activities, in order to make the District the first jurisdiction in the nation to allow online gambling. Reportedly, they have already scheduled a public hearing, which will be held on June 29 before the council’s finance and revenue committee.

At a roundtable organized by the committee chairman, Jack Evans, a number of issues were raised, including the manner in which the measure was enacted last year, without a hearing or debate and regardless of the warnings of the city’s chief financial officer and attorney general, that there is uncertainty over whether federal law permits this kind of online gaming.

Apparently, after the law was passed, it was revealed that Brown was an employee of a gambling-oriented law firm. However, he denied any conflict of interests, claiming that he has left the firm, Edwards Angell Palmer and Dodge, and that no company represented by the firm had business before the council that would have been affected.