Facts, that changed the online gambling!

[ValDes]

Hi folks!

I got a very interesting suggestion from our friend The.Dark.Knight in another thread!

...What if you start a brand new topic, where to post your explanation and point of view about some of the major stories and facts, that have changed the gambling history and world? I know there's planety of information, but it always better to take a loot at these events through the eyes of a well experienced gambler, like you! What do you think?

I think it's a great idea, Knight! But since I'm not the only experienced member in our forum (luckily ), let's give the chance to all of our members to express their position!!
The topic is open for everyone, who think can tell us more about major events and cases, that had a significant impact over the world of online gambling! And there are only a few restrictions:
- copy-paste from another sites is strictly forbidden;
- try to express your point of view (all that matters for us is you and your own thoughts );
- tell us how these events have affected you.

Well, friends! It's your turn now!

[ValDes]

Well, it seems that I would be the first one to post here! Again!

 

The fact, that changed and affected most the entire gambling world IMO is the so called UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) from 2006!This was and still is an event of a colossal scale, which generated such series of events that led to a total change in the rules of the game called ''online gambling''! I'm sure everyone of us have heard in one way or another about the UIGEA, but I bet, that only a few are fully aware of what actually happened and what are the real consequences of this act! And since that matter deserves to get a proper attention, I'll afford myself to present you a material called "The U.S On Tilt : Why The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act Is A Bad Bet" by M-r Gerd Alexander - B.A., Economics, Yale University, 2002; J.D. Candidate, Duke University School of Law, 2008. He managed to gather all the required information into one place and what is more important, he explained the whole chain of events in a terrific and detailed way, which is rather easy to follow and understand!

 

I hope it will be a pleasure for all of you learning the whole truth about this most important piece of gambling history and don't forget to share your opinions afterwards! Enjoy reading folks!

 

 

THE U.S. ON TILT : WHY THE UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT ACT IS A BAD BET

 

GERD ALEXANDER

 

 

ABSTRACT

 

The United States federal government’s attempts to curb Internet gambling are beginning to resemble a game of whack-a- mole. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (the “UIGEA” or “Act”) represents its most recent attack on Internet gambling. This iBrief first looks at U.S. attempts to limit Internet gambling and how those efforts have affected gambling law and business. It then discusses how the UIGEA works and highlights some of its major limitations. This iBrief argues that the UIGEA will not only fail to rein in online gambling, but that the U.S. federal government is treading an improvident course towards prohibition and will undermine U.S. policy concerns. Finally, this piece concludes by recommending that the U.S. abandon its current course and regulate online gambling.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

In 2005, approximately fifteen to twenty million United States (“U.S.”) gamblers placed bets online. The U.S. online gambling market was estimated at six billion dollars, representing half of the world’s online gambling revenues. At the same time, the U.S. government has been the world’s staunchest opponent of online gambling. Under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, the Department of Justice has fought its growth. Additionally, legislators have spent the better part of a decade attempting to enact anti-Internet gambling laws.

 

On October 13, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the UIGEA. Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn) attached the legislation to an unrelated port-security bill just moments before it was voted on. The UIGEA’s unexpected enactment created industry hysteria. Stock prices of publicly-traded e-casinos plummeted, wiping out over approximately seven billion dollars of market value. Some of the most prominent e- casinos pulled out of the U.S. market entirely. Since then, the mass media has churned out wide-ranging commentary on the Act; from complete dismissals of its viability to comparisons with Prohibition.

 

This

iBrief

is divided into three parts. Part one traces the development of Internet gambling law. Part two analyzes the UIGEA, discussing its function and highlighting some of its major limitations. Part three discusses the implications of the Act; arguing that the Act will push online gambling further underground and, in so doing, undermine U.S policy concerns. The

iBrief

concludes by recommending a better way for the US to regulate online gambling. Importantly, this piece makes a wide- ranging examination of a broad legal landscape. It simply touches upon complex legal issues that may call for more in-depth treatment. Rather than resolve all of these questions, the author’s goal here is merely to illustrate an imprudent U.S. policy by examining the various components involved.

 

I. INTERNET GAMBLING PRE-ACT

 

A. Gambling Online

 

An internet user, or “gamer,” can participate in various gambling activities in a virtual environment (“e-casino”). For example, one can bet on sports, horseracing, and casino-style games. A gamer can even participate in real-time poker tournaments with players from around the world.

 

In order to gamble online, the user must download the proper software from the e-casino’s website onto his/her personal computer. The user then creates a personal account providing her name, home address, a valid e-mail address, date of birth and other personal information. The user then accesses the e-casino’s virtual “lobby” wherein she must set up an electronic cash account from which wagers will be drawn and in which winnings will be deposited.

 

Among various account-funding alternatives, such as personal checks and credit cards, U.S. gamblers primarily use e-wallets. An e- wallet is an online account in which money can be deposited and used in commercial transactions. The e-wallet drafts on a consumer’s bank, credit card or debit account and routes the funds to the merchant; in this case, an e-casino. However, these funds can also be used in transactions unrelated to gambling. The most widely used e-wallets facilitate billions of dollars in commerce annually, and are based and regulated offshore. Once a player has set up and funded her e-wallet, it is time for the games to begin.

 

 

B. The Legal Framework of Internet Gambling

 

Historically, gambling regulation has primarily been left to the states. Accordingly, gambling laws vary widely from state to state. For example, while Utah completely outlaws gambling, it’s neighbor, Nevada, hosts a plethora of gaming attractions. While there are several federal gambling laws, most are designed to support state law in the face of interstate or international gambling. In general, liability under federal gambling statutes is triggered when the gambling activity has violated an underlying state law. Only fairly recently has Congress taken a more assertive role, legislating over specific forms of gambling, such as sports, horseracing, and lotteries.

 

Despite the Internet’s novelty, pre-existing federal law has proven adequate to prosecute offshore e-casino operators, but only in limited circumstances. For example, while courts have found online sports gambling to be impermissible under the Wire Act, there is no federal law explicitly outlawing online poker. The Wire Act essentially prohibits businesses from engaging in the transmission of sports bets or wagers over the telephone or other wired devices in jurisdictions where such activity is illegal. As a result, law-makers have attempted to expand legislation to deal explicitly with all forms of Internet gambling.

 

Over the past decade, the federal government has articulated four major policy concerns with Internet gambling. First, the Internet provides easy access to gambling, which “could exacerbate the temptations facing compulsive gamblers.” Second, whereas a gambler’s age can be physically examined at a traditional brick-and-mortar casino, it is much more difficult to verify the gambler’s age online. Third, due to the lack of regulation of the online gambling industry, e-casinos have an incentive to defraud gamblers; either by rigging the odds to favor the e-casino or by outright theft of bets. Fourth, given the “volume, speed, and international reach of Internet transactions and offshore locations of [e-casinos]” in addition to the “high level of anonymity” enjoyed by e-casino operators, federal officials believe that online gambling is uniquely susceptible to money laundering. These four issues underlie the federal government’s approach towards online gambling.

 

C. Early Government Action

 

Beginning in the mid-90s, several bills were introduced in Congress to crack down on Internet gambling. One such bill would have amended the Wire Act to expressly ban all forms of Internet gambling. Other bills focused on preventing credit card companies and other financial institutions from transferring money in connection with gambling deemed unlawful under existing federal or state law. The bills were defeated largely because of disputes over whether interactive interstate horseracing and interactive state lotteries—huge lobbying interests—would be exempt.

 

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) also took a hard stance against online gambling, relying primarily on a questionable theory that the Wire Act, as originally enacted in 1961, criminalized

all forms

of Internet gambling. In 2003, the DOJ issued letters to the National Association of Broadcasters and other media groups advising that providing advertising for e-casinos may be considered aiding or abetting illegal gambling operations. Months later, dozens of major media companies were issued subpoenas.

 

The DOJ managed to upset multi-million dollar advertising deals between media outlets and e-casinos, and, with little more than legal posturing, collected millions in fines and settlements. Initially, media companies were not willing litigate the matter. But in August of 2004, Casino City, the largest website devoted to online gambling, sued the DOJ on First Amendment grounds to establish its right to accept advertisements for Internet gambling. The court dismissed the case on the basis that Casino City lacked standing as it had neither received a cease-and-desist letter nor a subpoena from the DOJ. Although the case was dismissed on appeal, Casino City reportedly never was issued a subpoena thereafter.

 

Significantly, there are apparently no cases in which the DOJ prosecuted a lawsuit against a media company on charges related to online gambling advertising. Eventually, the online gambling industry established a circumvention and advertisements resurfaced on prominent media outlets. Rather than advertise an e-casino’s dot-com site, where a customer could gamble for real money, advertisers now promoted the e- casino’s dot-net sister-site, where gambling for real money was not available, and which had hyperlinks to the dot-com site. The media outlet was now technically advertising non-gambling activity and advertising for online gambling became ubiquitous once more.

 

1

. In Re MasterCard

and The Wire Act

 

In Re MasterCard

tested the DOJ’s theory that the Wire Act prohibited all forms of online gambling. In that case, a class of gamblers sued their creditors to free themselves of debt accrued while gambling online. The plaintiffs alleged,

inter alia

, that the debts were the result of gambling activity that was illegal under the Wire Act and thus uncollectible by creditors. District Court Judge Duvall dismissed the case finding that “a plain reading of the statutory language clearly requires that the object of the gambling be a sporting event or contest.” The court probed further into the legislative history of the Wire Act, noting that recently proposed amendments to the Wire Act sought to expand its coverage to forms of gambling beyond sports-betting, including all games of chance. The judge viewed this as a Congressional admission that the Wire Act was indeed limited in scope. The Fifth Circuit affirmed on appeal. While circuit courts may disagree on the meaning of any statute, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling tremendously weakened the DOJ’s position that all forms of gambling were illegal pursuant to the Wire Act.

 

Nevertheless, the DOJ’s aggression and Congress’ persistent push for prohibitive legislation succeeded in creating a hostile U.S. terrain. There are virtually no e-casinos based in the U.S., and major credit card companies and domestic payment processors have voluntarily undertaken to block online wagers. This was a nominal victory, however, as U.S. gamblers are readily served by offshore e-casinos. Furthermore, in place of credit card companies, gamblers turned to e-wallets, many of which are located and regulated offshore. Online gambling continued to expand exponentially through 2005. But in 2006, the U.S. took the gambling world by surprise by enacting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”).

 

The section that follows analyzes the Act.

 

II. THE UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT ACT

 

Essentially, the UIGEA seeks to cut off the flow of funds from U.S. gamblers to e-casinos. To that end, it mainly targets two actors: e-casinos and financial institutions. The interplay of sections 5363 and 5366 makes it a felony for a person (1) engaged in the business of betting or wagering to (2) knowingly accept money (3) in connection with unlawful gambling.

The crime is punishable by up to five years in prison. Furthermore, federal regulators are required to draft regulations designed to compel financial institutions to identify and block restricted gambling transactions. Noncompliant financial institutions are subject to civil penalties.

 

The Act requires gambling to be

unlawful

under existing federal or state law to trigger criminal liability. Therefore, the Act’s criminal provisions rely on the violation of one or more of the patchwork of existing state and federal gambling laws, some of which also require a predicate offense.

 

A. Federal Law Triggers of Criminal Liability Under § 5363

 

There are two types of federal laws which would trigger the “unlawful gambling” prong of § 5363. The first does not require a predicate offense, while the second does require a predicate offense. The Wire Act is an example of the first type in that it directly prohibits sports betting. Comparatively, the Illegal Gambling Act (“IGBA”) and the Travel Act require a predicate violation of a separate federal or state law. Specifically, the IGBA makes it a crime to conduct a gambling business that

violates state law

and the Travel Act prohibits interstate or overseas travel that furthers the operation of an

unlawful

business enterprise. Similarly, the new UIGEA requires such a predicate offense.

 

To illustrate, in

U.S. v. BetOnSports

, an offshore sports e-casino was permanently enjoined from doing business in the U.S. By operating a sports-gambling business, BetOnSports was in clear violation of the Wire Act. That violation triggered a Travel Act violation as it rendered BetOnSports an “illegal gambling business.” Under these facts, the new Act would be applied in much the same way; that is, BetOnSports.com knowingly accepted bets in connection with sports gambling deemed unlawful under the Wire Act. However, in cases where a gambling business is not sports-related, federal law will not trigger the new Act as most of the applicable federal laws themselves require a predicate violation. Ultimately, satisfying the “unlawful gambling” prong of section 5363 will depend principally on state law violations.

 

B. State Law triggers of § 5363

 

Where state law clearly prohibits Internet gambling, an offshore e- casino’s operation would be unlawful under § 5363 of the Act. While, “there are only a handful of states that expressly ban Internet gambling,” all states have general anti-gambling statutes. Despite “the presumption that [these statutes] do not apply if part of the [gambling] activity takes place overseas,” courts have found them adequate to prosecute offshore e- casinos under federal law. In theory, the facts in both

BetOnSports

and

People v. World Interactive Gaming Corp.

would have satisfied the “unlawful gambling” prong of § 5363.

 

The court in

BetOnSports

concluded that the defendant e-casino had violated a Missouri state law which “outlaws gambling and the promotion of gambling outside of heavily regulated river boat casinos.” That state law violation further triggered liability under the Illegal Gambling Business Act. Under similar facts, the state law violation would have provided the necessary trigger for the UIGEA.

 

In

People v. World Interactive Gaming Corp

, the court found an e- casino in violation of a New York statute that prohibits gambling within New York State. Crucially, the court determined that the location from which the online bet was made was where the gambling occurred. There, the state law violation further invoked the Travel Act, as it would have the UIGEA.

 

One gaming law practitioner believes the analysis in

World Interactive

should be broadened

,

reasoning that if gambling is said to take place on both ends of the Internet connection, then e-casinos are doing business in the location from which the players make their bets. Thus, the e-casino is illegally operating without a license “whether or not the state has adopted a specific Internet anti-gambling law.” On the other hand, a Texas state court explained that “a statute that prohibits recording bets in Texas [could not] be used against a gambling business which records bets [overseas], even if the bets are called in from Texas.” Ultimately, the courts have looked closely to the statutory language in deciding whether state law was violated, indicating that rulings on the issue would vary across the states.

 

1. What about Poker?

 

“Online poker has grown dramatically from $82 million in annual revenue in 2000 to over $2 billion in 2005.” Neither the Act nor any other federal statute explicitly addresses poker. The issue of how the Act affects Internet poker is important and hinges both on state law and how the Act will be interpreted by courts.

 

Conceptually, there are three types of games. The first type is games of chance, in which all of the variation is determined by chance, such as lotteries. The second type is games of skill, in which none of the outcomes are determined by chance, such as chess, checkers and go. The third type is a hybrid of the two, in which skill and chance mix in various concentrations, but in most of which the short-run domination by chance washes out in the long run, leaving as winners those who are good at understanding probability and/or good at deception. The vast majority of state gambling laws covers only games of chance—not games of skill. When confronted with a hybrid, most courts apply the predominance test to determine if the game will be treated as one of skill or chance. The predominance test asks whether skill or chance predominates in determining the outcome of a game. Whether poker would be deemed skill-dominated under the test is uncertain. First, it would be implausible to argue that in any one hand of poker skill always dominates chance. Second, the author has not identified any studies evaluating the weight that skill has in the outcome of any one poker tournament or cash game, or over many tournaments or cash games. Lastly, only limited case law exists on the issue. Predictably, many e-casinos maintain that poker is a game of skill, implying that their websites are legal in most jurisdictions. However, “[t]here are some states that do not allow wagering even on games of skill.”

 

The UIGEA is arguably broad enough to encompass not just games of chance but hybrid games in which chance is present, such as poker. Recall that § 5363 applies to persons engaged in the “business of betting or wagering.” The term “bet or wager” is defined as the risking of something of value on the outcome of a contest, sports event, or a

game subject to chance

. The statute neither provides a definition for, nor examples of, a “game subject to chance” and, notably, does not use the more popular phrase “game of chance”. The former phrasing—game subject to chance—is much broader. Indeed, even games requiring much skill are subject to some degree of chance. In games like blackjack, draw, poker, and bridge, the outcome of any single hand is determined substantially by chance, but the outcome of a series of repeat iterations seems not to be. Thus, it appears that even games that may be predominated by skill would be covered under the Act’s definition of “bet or wager.”

 

Furthermore, in the following subparagraph of the Act, betting includes “the purchas[ing] of the opportunity to win a lottery that is

predominantly

subject to chance.” This language ostensibly endorses the predominance test in the case of lotteries. Congress easily could have referred to “games

predominantly

subject to chance” in its definition of “bet or wager.” Arguably, the term “predominantly” was omitted in an attempt to encompass hybrid games. Therefore, the Act probably covers poker even if poker would be deemed a game of skill under the predominance test. Perhaps not coincidentally, legislation has been introduced that would exempt all “games of skill,” including poker, from liability under any federal law.

 

C. No Accepting Bets. But What About Placing and Transmitting

Them?

 

The Act’s criminal provision applies only to one who “knowingly

accepts

” a bet, i.e., the e-casino. It does not apply to a player who places a bet. The Act also fails to impose criminal liability on the banks, credit card companies, and e-wallets that transmit wagered funds from the bettor to the e-casino. These financial intermediaries—collectively referred to in the Act as Financial Transactions providers (“FTPs”)—are further unlikely to be convicted of aiding or abetting. Professor Nelson Rose observes: “For a law designed to stop the flow of money, it is bizarre to make it a crime only to receive the funds, but not to send them or transmit them.”

 

Civil action may be brought against FTPs. At the time this

iBrief

was written, the Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board missed the deadline for drafting regulations requiring FTPs to implement policies and procedures to identify and block prohibited transactions. However, once the regulations are in place, both U.S. and offshore FTPs must comply with these regulations, or they will be subject to civil injunctions.

 

The forthcoming regulations will not likely have a significant effect on major credit card companies, as most already have mechanisms that obstruct online gambling transactions. The regulations likely will make such systems mandatory for all domestic FTPs.

 

The Act also allows federal regulators to exempt certain transactions in consideration of practical limitations. For instance, requiring banks to analyze “40 billion checks a year would be a largely manual process.” “If checks are not exempt, this would break banks as it would be too costly to enforce.” But “

f checks

are

exempt, players could simply send a check to an online site.” Exempting checks may not appear to be such a big loophole. Paper checks are, after all, disfavored among bettors due to the hassle of mailing them and waiting for them to post to one’s account. But “

f checks are not within the purview of the law” it is unclear whether e-checks, which present much less of an obstacle than paper checks, will be subject to regulation.

 

Furthermore, U.S. gamblers primarily use offshore e-wallets to transfer their bets. The e-wallet business model makes it difficult for a U.S. financial institution to distinguish a gambling transaction from a non- gambling transaction. Thus, it will be left to e-wallets and other offshore FTPs to voluntarily comply with U.S. regulations. It is very unlikely that all offshore financial intermediaries will walk away from a twelve billion dollar industry in order to avoid U.S. civil sanctions. An obvious enforcement alternative would be to create a “blacklist” of noncompliant offshore FTPs with which U.S. financial institutions are prohibited from engaging in any transaction. Such an approach, however, could lead down a slippery slope. One expert asks whether “federal regulators [would] then prohibit U.S. banks from sending funds to an overseas bank, which forwards the money to [an e-wallet].” Blocking all transactions, lawful and unlawful alike, seems a fairly draconian, expensive, and unsustainable alternative.

 

III. ONLINE GAMBLING POST-ACT

 

A. Disparate Pressure on Publicly-Traded Companies

 

The passing of the Act devastated many publicly-traded online- gambling companies. PartyGaming, “which rake[d] in nearly $4 million a day from its 19 million customers, fell 57 percent . . . . Sportingbet, which owns sportsbook.com and ParadisePoker.com, lost 60 percent[;] 888 was down 33 percent[;] and Austria's bwin.com fell 24 percent.” Ever beholden to their shareholders, publicly-traded e-casinos stopped serving

U.S. customers after the Act was passed. Many perceived the Act as a clear proclamation that online gambling was now prohibited. Still, some questioned whether the Act had real teeth. The abrupt withdrawal of public companies freed up market share which was subsequently seized by privately-held e-casinos that do not answer to shareholders and thus could afford to test the Act’s true bite.

 

Additionally, after the Act passed, NETeller, the most widely-used publicly-traded e-wallet, continued serving U.S. customers. The DOJ later arrested two of its retired founders in the U.S. Virgin Islands on money laundering charges related to NETeller’s role in facilitating online wagers. Shortly after the arrests, NETeller pulled out of the U.S. market and later settled charges with the DOJ, but not before it’s stock price plummeted. E-casino websites have since been directing their U.S. patrons to use e-passporte.com, a privately-held e-wallet, since publicly- traded e-wallets are no longer available. Other privately-owned e-wallets have emerged in response to NETeller’s withdrawal.

 

After all of this, the Act and the DOJ’s efforts may not have even slowed down online gambling in the U.S. Even if an overall decline in online gambling can be shown, it still would not follow that those who are

in need of protection the most—underage and problem gamblers—were impeded. The consequence has been to deny gamers the preferred services of publicly-traded e-casinos and e-wallets. A couple of questions follow: What will be the practical effect of this shift in the major players? And what impact will it have on U.S. policy concerns?

 

B. The Replacement of Publicly-Traded Companies with Privately- Owned e-Casinos Undermines U.S. Policy Objectives.

 

Approximately eighty countries regulate online gambling. “Many of the world’s largest [e-casinos] are listed on the London Stock Exchange or the Alternative Investment Market.” In 2005, the U.K. established the Gambling Commission as part of an aggressive reform of its gambling regulations. The Gambling Commission has the primary objectives of keeping crime and corruption out of gambling, ensuring gambling activities are offered in a fair environment, providing information and support to problem gamblers and preventing underage gambling.

Other countries, including Australia, regulate online gambling and require e-casinos to implement similar protections for consumers.

 

In contrast, most privately-owned e-casinos are not subject to comparable oversight. In a study conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office, 56% of e-casinos failed to list a licensing country on their websites and 62% failed to list a contact location. Congressman Bob Goodlatte, a long-time proponent of Internet gambling prohibition, emphasized that “these offshore, fly-by-night Internet gambling operators are unlicensed, untaxed and unregulated . . . .” It is ironic then, that the practical effect of U.S. policy has been to increase market share for these unregulated e-casinos, which are potentially more harmful than their publicly-traded and regulated counterparts. Public e-wallets have similarly been replaced with private e-wallets which can be dangerous to consumers. According to one expert, “[t]here are always third-party processors popping up that are really fly-by-nights... [T]hese are small companies in Central America, Latin America, and even the Middle East.” In several cases, e-wallets have operated for a few months and suddenly disappeared with the casinos’ and players’ money . . .” Further, these unregulated entities have little, if any, incentive to incur the costs of implementing consumer safeguards, which are imposed on regulated companies. Arguably, the lack of security resulting from pushing the industry further underground may discourage some would-be gamblers from internet gambling. But, on balance, internet gambling in the U.S. will most likely continue to thrive.

 

The market may distinguish and reward foreign unregulated companies that voluntarily undertake consumer protection measures.

However, empirical evidence supports the general proposition that foreign companies will be less compliant with domestic law than domestic companies. Furthermore, privately-held companies generally will be less transparent and regulated than publicly-traded companies. Arguably, even if private e-casinos instituted consumer safeguards, publicly-traded domestically-based companies are preferable. The U.S. has taken this option off the table for American gamblers and, in so doing, has increased their exposure to the very dangers it purports to address.

 

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS: WHERE TO GO FROM HERE?

 

In light of U.S. policy concerns, what are the viable alternatives? While a comprehensive answer to this question is beyond the scope of this

iBrief

, the author recommends that the U.S. follow the examples of the U.K., Australia and other developed nations and regulate online gambling in a manner that can address legitimate public policy concerns while remaining enforceable and manageable. Commentators have suggested alternative regulatory frameworks.

Some commentators vie for intrastate regulation:

"The state could protect its citizens by requiring that online gambling businesses operate honestly according to that state’s rules. State regulation would include social protections, such as enforcing standards against underage gambling, requiring mechanisms such as loss limits that gamblers could use to control their gambling, and mandating the delivery of responsible gaming information to online players.

"

 

"In addition to promoting responsible online gambling, states could tax gambling and create jobs, keeping gambling dollars within the U.S."

 

Others point out that “the Internet is uniquely a creature of interstate commerce” and thus federal regulation might be a better approach. Recently, law-makers have proposed legislation in support of both intrastate and interstate regulation.Yet, although lobbyists and legislators have mobilized to push for regulation, the U.S. is trending toward prohibition.

 

Arguably, flat bans have a tendency to produce dangerous black markets. Thus, it can be argued that regulation is usually a desirable alternative. But does this viewpoint justify legalizing cocaine or child pornography? No doubt, the line must be drawn somewhere. While this issue is beyond the scope of this

iBrief

, the author would make a couple of observations. First, U.S. law regarding cocaine trafficking and child pornography is unequivocal: these activities are deemed unacceptable and are, correspondingly, illegal across the board. Second, U.S. policy on gambling has been ambivalent, at best. A moral argument against online gambling will not be persuasive as long as there remains no meaningful distinction between forms of gambling deemed lawful (e.g. horseracing, state lotteries, fantasy football, credit swap defaults) and those deemed unlawful (e.g., dog-racing, sports-betting). Second, the tangible character of drugs makes effective enforcement within U.S. borders a practical possibility. The Internet, on the other hand, eludes such enforcement due to the lack of physical national borders and, accordingly, makes attempting to ban online gambling akin to clutching a handful of fine sand.

 

CONCLUSION

 

U.S. gamblers have demonstrated that they will continue gambling online. Neither the Act nor the DOJ have effectively addressed the dangers of online gambling. On the contrary, the U.S. has forced transparent and regulated publicly-traded companies out of the market, only to be replaced by more opaque and potentially unscrupulous privately-held companies. In so doing, the U.S. has amplified the risks of consumer abuse, underage gambling, problem gambling and money laundering. Furthermore, other governments have demonstrated that regulating online gambling is a workable alternative. It should not take another Prohibition for the U.S. to realize what many countries already have: Regulation is the better option.

 

[Ala_B]

Wow! Now I understand why so many things have changed after that awful uigea!

 

Thanks Valdes, terrific find!

[FAZIII1]

is not easy be a gamblling player from Usa - They cant play in most good reputable place. In Poland web gambling is olso illegal - But most people ignored this and play - to far most place still is open for Poland players. Mayby some day this change Im remember some time ago when our government wonna accepts ACTA law

 

The government wanted to keep track of us - it meant olso finish all Internet gambling transaction for players and gambling affiliates+ a lot other realy bad changes for us -thousands of people took to the streets - a great-big manifestation - the government finally rejected acta

 

[Luciana]

Wow, I didn't know about those protests through Poland! Glad you made it!

 

Offtopic - Krakow seems to be a beautiful city, we have a lot of offers for visiting it, here! I definitely will

[ValDes]

Poland is not the only country with massive anti ACTA demostrations - almost the whole Europe joined the stream against it! Including my Bulgaria. The irony here is that some of the rules in ACTA were actually trying to put more regulation into the online casino transactions. And you know, more regulation means also more security, and more security is always good for the players...

[Greg]

forgive me for asking but what is ACTA?

[FAZIII1]

and maybe you're right valdez - But in polish law web gambling is ilegal - (this is dead rulez )becose if people wonna play then they play -without problem and santcions. - But if guverment accepts ACTA -.... then thats mean finish web gambling transactions for polish players..-

 

. - Greg you must find this in google is a lot answers abaout ACTA - and why people in world dont woona ACTA ... My english is to poor to tell you more abaout all ACTA rulez - acta restrict freedom in web - Internet

[ValDes]

forgive me for asking but what is ACTA?

 

Hi Greg!

 

ACTA - The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

More info about it

 

No matter how governments call them - ACTA, PIPA, SOPA, etc, they are all the same! Trying to limit our rights and freedom!

[Marco]

Thanks for the links Val, I've heard a little about ACTA but didn't know how deeply it went. If people in online business want to make money they should not have to restrict web use to make it happen.

[ValDes]

Thanks for the links Val, I've heard a little about ACTA but didn't know how deeply it went. If people in online business want to make money they should not have to restrict web use to make it happen.

 

Don't worry Marco! Italy and Bulgaria are not going to join it for now, as their governments now are fully aware what their own people are thinking about this pile of horse sh**, called ACTA!

[Black Diamond]

Don't worry Marco! Italy and Bulgaria are not going to join it for now, as their governments now are fully aware what their own people are thinking about this pile of horse sh**, called ACTA!

 

Well at least some governments are being sensible! I had no idea that these kind of Internet usage restriction laws were gaining so much popularity; it's kinda scary.

[ValDes]

I'm afraid so Black! Too much regulations already, too many restrictions, limits and caps on our freedoms and rights over the Internet! And that's only the beginning...

 

I recommend all of you a novel by George Orwell "1984", which is published in the distant 1949, but it's still so so so popular and true!

[Luciana]

I recommend all of you a novel by George Orwell "1984", which is published in the distant 1949, but it's still so so so popular and true!

 

 

I recommend also his other famous book "Animal farm"

[SlotoHolic]

Ha, look at that! I've never thought I'll meet so many well educated young people in a gambling forum. My sincere compliments for all people still reading books

 

Luciana, ValDes - you rock

[Luciana]

Oh, thanks Sloto!

[Black Diamond]

If there's one thing I've learned about online gambling it's that there's all sorts of people that play

 

I think a lot of this over-regulation comes from ignorance about how the Internet works, really. I can't imagine it continuing when today's youth get into government positions. I hope I'm right!

[ValDes]

If there's one thing I've learned about online gambling it's that there's all sorts of people that play

 

I think a lot of this over-regulation comes from ignorance about how the Internet works, really. I can't imagine it continuing when today's youth get into government positions. I hope I'm right!

 

On the contrary, my friend! Just answer one simple question - who is in charge today and weren't those people hippies once?!

[Black Diamond]

On the contrary, my friend! Just answer one simple question - who is in charge today and weren't those people hippies once?!

 

You know, I have never thought about it like that.

[SlotoHolic]

I'm surprised that nobody has proposed a fact, which changed the online gambling, called gambling portals Websites like Askgamblers.com have changed so many things over the years for us players, and all of them for good! I remember back in the start of the new millenium there were just a few sites - poor programmed, lack of information, only a couple of bonuses... Now we have everything we need in just a click of the mouse. So, in my opinion all that gambling portals and websites have changed the gambling world, haven't they?

[ValDes]

Indeed, Sloto!

 

Without websites like ours, the online gambling would be less popular for sure, not to mention how many players get help and support, alongside with useful information and tons of tasty bonuses!

[The.Dark.Knight]

I think there is something which constantly changes the world of online gambling and that is the rapid development of all the IT technologies. The speed of the connection, mainboards, CPU, better and cheaper OS and many many others components- all these pieces of the puzzle gives to the gambling market the opportunity to offer players better and innovate products! Some of the downloadable casinos are already more a bit of an IT masterpiece rather than a gambling software!

[ValDes]

Darky, you are completely right my friend! Nothing could impact or change the gambling industry deeper and faster than the information technologies. A big point for you, Dark Knight!

[Ala_B]

Guys, I think you have missed the most important here! And since you are only a bunch of boys it's not so hard to understand why you cannot see the obvious. And the obvious fact, that have changed the gambling history most seriously throughout all these years, is ... people! Simple and clear. All the technologies, acts and whatever you might think of, doesn't worth a dime, if people (players, customers, affiliates, managers, casino reps and so on) don't want to change or develop something! What was a gold mine or an el dorado ten years ago, now is a multi billion business, organized with strict rules, giving job to tens of thousand men and wemen, attracting new customers through a huge net of affiliates and websites... So much have changed and all of it due to the people.

[SlotoHolic]

Guys, I think you have missed the most important here! And since you are only a bunch of boys it's not so hard to understand why you cannot see the obvious. And the obvious fact, that have changed the gambling history most seriously throughout all these years, is ... people! Simple and clear. All the technologies, acts and whatever you might think of, doesn't worth a dime, if people (players, customers, affiliates, managers, casino reps and so on) don't want to change or develop something! What was a gold mine or an el dorado ten years ago, now is a multi billion business, organized with strict rules, giving job to tens of thousand men and wemen, attracting new customers through a huge net of affiliates and websites... So much have changed and all of it due to the people.

Bluebird, I may not be the typical member of the so called "bunch of boys", because of some tivial reasons like the one, that I'm already a little over 40, but I support your opinion. And is really strange we haven't thought of it earlier, which reminds me how lucky we are, to have you around us.