INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • yisman

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/u-s-now-says-all-online-gambling-illegal-not-just-sports-bets

  • tristanwolf

    “No matter how hard he tried, Adelson couldn’t seem to formulate a congressional coalition large enough to stomp out his casino’s online competition. Members of Congress were quick to recognize that the casino magnate’s anti-online gambling bill, sponsored by Republican representatives like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), which introduced the legislation just one day after Adelson’s (100 million to the Repubs) donations became public, was a swamp monster that disregarded the rule of law.” -ny daily news

    what a p.o.s.

  • GrindUnumb

    Could this also again call into question the legality of DFS? Sounds like it would, but I’m far from a legal expert.

  • WidumBoise

  • bigwillie20

    I really miss being able to play like 20 small MTT’s in 1 day on PokerStars for like $50

  • WidumBoise

    I manifest a reality where online poker and any/all sports gambling is FULLY REGULATED FEDERALLY across the entire United States by end 2020.

  • noddy

    @bigwillie20 said...

    I really miss being able to play like 20 small MTT’s in 1 day on PokerStars for like $50

    This. Pokerstars was awesome although party poker in the beginning was the best

  • GoldenWolf87

    Adelson the rich boy is trying to put sports betting as Illegal.
    https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/23543-sheldon-adelson-gets-his-way-department-of-justice-says-all-online-gambling-illegal

    Yet at the same time Adelson has no problems or issues earning profits from his own casino’s. Its clear he hates competition. I believe he will fail.

    I am getting tried of this.

  • GoldenWolf87

    This comment from an article is golden.

    “Would be nice if Adelson didn’t waste 113million to make sure his brick and mortar casino’s didn’t have competition from online gaming and used it for something more important than his own greed”

  • Supersharpie

    Thankfully Adelson will be dead soon and by the time this plays out in the courts we will have a new POTUS and different leadership at the DOJ.

    DFS is here to stay.

  • yisman

    @GoldenWolf87 said...

    This comment from an article is golden.

    “Would be nice if Adelson didn’t waste 113million to make sure his brick and mortar casino’s didn’t have competition from online gaming and used it for something more important than his own greed”

    Yep.

  • thedude404

    • 2015 FanDuel NBA Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @Supersharpie said...

    Thankfully Adelson will be dead soon and by the time this plays out in the courts we will have a new POTUS and different leadership at the DOJ.

    DFS is here to stay.

    Saying “DFS is here to stay” is a very bold statement. Best case scenario is that DFS will operate with a continuous cloud over its head, with the DOJ having the ability to shut it all down at any point. Worst case scenario is in 90 days DFS gets shut down. Same goes for legal online poker in the states that allow it.

    And yes, this is all due to Sheldon Adelson getting a gift from the Trump admin. Not trying to get political here, but it is what it is. This new “wire act reversal” serves no useful purpose. If anyone has any other reasoning behind why the DOJ is taking this line other than giving Adelson this gift, I’d like to hear it.

  • thedude404

    • 2015 FanDuel NBA Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @GrindUnumb said...

    Could this also again call into question the legality of DFS? Sounds like it would, but I’m far from a legal expert.

    Yes, it definitely calls into question the legality of DFS. Here is a short article explaining why:

    https://abovethelaw.com/2019/01/trump-administration-takes-aim-at-online-gambling-in-sudden-wire-act-reversal/

  • electrichaz3

    Has dk or FD put forth a statement in response to the wire reversal?

  • electrichaz3

    This memo from the DOJ does not circumvent prior rulings by courts or precedent. While this puts a cloud over things the 5th circuit has decided on this matter. Of it makes it to the supreme court the gambling industry will be victorious imo. I don’t think a thing will be shut down in 90 days based off a memo by the DOJ imo

    Furthermore this is a revision of opinion not law it self which in reality does not change anything for anyone.

  • GoldenWolf87

    @electrichaz3 said...

    This memo from the DOJ does not circumvent prior rulings by courts or precedent. While this puts a cloud over things the 5th circuit has decided on this matter. Of it makes it to the supreme court the gambling industry will be victorious imo. I don’t think a thing will be shut down in 90 days based off a memo by the DOJ imo

    Furthermore this is a revision of opinion not law it self which in reality does not change anything for anyone.

    If anything betting sports sites like DK, FD could basically come out and attack directly by stating to Adelson.

    Adelson do you hate competition for your own casinos?
    Or rather you fear competition for your own casinos.

    He will have no answer.

  • electrichaz3

    I hate sheldon Adelson as much as the next guy. I have boycotted his properties and i know many guys in the 2p2 community that have done the same, but this goes deeper

    As an online poker player since 2001 and having lived through black Friday, having money tied up, etc, this to me does not feel like a similar situation. Several rulings have been made in regards to the wire act, and the uigea has had a ruling stating that it does not expand on the wire act. This opinion put out by the DOJ is basically over a comma and is more of a lesson in grammar then interpretation of the law. The supreme court has weighed in on this issue as well as judges in the 1st and 5th circuit.

    When you look at online poker and the amount of work and money that has been invested by the states and vendors to get things rolling, you can be 100% certain this will be challenged in the courts. As a pa resident and thek being on the verge of joining the market and having nj and all of their progress right next door, I see no way this does not end in fireworks in court.

    Same goes for daily fantasy. I see no way FanDuel and draft kings don’t go to court and win on this issue.

  • electrichaz3

    Also let us not forget the game of skill argument and the carve out from uigea…

    Wait, daily fantasy sports?
    The age-old question of whether daily fantasy sports runs afoul of any federal laws reared its head at least slightly on Monday when the opinion came down. Going back to the opinion:

    We further conclude that that the 2006 enactment of UIGEA did not alter the scope of the Wire Act.

    The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act famously carved out fantasy sports for money from its provisions. Regardless, DFS takes place on an explicitly on an interstate basis. And while DraftKings, FanDuel and others say they are games of skill, they still operate in some states where the attorneys general have opined that they constitute illegal gambling.

    The bottom line: It’s definitely less than ideal

    https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/34391/doj-new-wire-act-opinion/

  • electrichaz3

    This is a good write up on the scenarios and imo what’s most likely to occur…

    What does it mean for online gambling in the US?
    Taken at face value, every state offering online gambling (lottery, casino games, poker, sports betting and perhaps daily fantasy sports) is in violation of federal law. New Jersey’s 2013 online gambling law that legalized NJ online casinos is under scrutiny.

    In fact, a strict reading of the opinion could extend to all sorts of things, including casino promotions that cross state lines and retail lottery ticket sales that can be routed to out-of-state processing centers.

    The most at-risk targets include:

    The current Nevada-Delaware-New Jersey interstate compact that allows the three states to pool online poker players.
    Daily fantasy contests.
    The sale of interstate lottery tickets over the internet.
    Fortunately, we’re likely not to be dealing with face value.

    Unless it’s ready for a long battle in the courts (fighting an uphill battle against precedent and the overwhelming majority of legal opinions), the DOJ is unlikely to adhere to a strict, absolutist reading of the opinion. And if enough pressure mounts, the DOJ could simply pull the opinion.

    Or Congress, once it is no longer in shutdown mode, could take matters into its own hands and amend and clarify the antiquated federal gambling laws.

    It will all come down to enforcement
    How the DOJ chooses to enforce the opinion will likely determine the response from online gaming states and what happens next.

    States that have legalized marijuana run afoul of existing federal drug laws; the DOJ has decided not to enforce those laws.

    There’s a good chance it will do the same with online gambling, considering:

    There are active, legal online gambling industries in Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey.
    Legal online sports betting is available in three states: Nevada, New Jersey, and West Virginia — and counting.
    Eleven states sell online lottery products: Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, North Dakota, Maine, New York, and Virginia.
    Daily fantasy sports is expressly legal in 19 states.
    It doesn’t appear that the DOJ will use a strict interpretation of the opinion.

    “The change here will have some impact, but it doesn’t mean that large swaths of gambling that were once legal are now illegal and vice versa,” a Justice Department official familiar with the matter told the Washington Post. “Not to say that there couldn’t be some situation where this extends the reach; this is just one more tool.”

    Couple that with the following passage in the opinion itself and it’s pretty clear that the DOJ isn’t prepared to die on this hill:

    “… courts may entertain challenges to the government’s view of the statute’s scope in such proceedings. While the possibility of judicial review cannot substitute for the Department’s independent obligation to interpret and faithfully execute the law, that possibility does provide a one-way check on the correctness of today’s opinion…”

    Get ready for a legal battle anyway
    Unfortunately, even if the opinion is only loosely enforced, it will have an impact.

    An unenforced or loosely enforced opinion is a lot like a schoolyard bully in that the threat of action will keep state lawmakers, operators and payment processors cowed.

    That could lead to two devastating effects:

    The increased confusion created by the opinion will slow, if not completely halt, future online gambling legalization efforts.
    It will make existing payment processors very skittish when it comes to processing online gambling transactions. The loss of payment processors would be as harmful as an actual prohibition.
    As such, online gaming states are unlikely to go quietly into the night. It wouldn’t be surprising to see states like New Jersey take the initiative and challenge the opinion, even if the DOJ doesn’t try to shut down its legal online gambling industries.

    And they have something of a layup case against an opinion that is on a very shaky legal footing.

    Courts could strike down the opinion on the grounds that:

    Like the 2011 OLC opinion, and as most legal scholars believe, the Wire Act only applies to sports betting; or
    The routing of information or data that begins and ends in the same state doesn’t constitute interstate gambling even if it crosses state lines, or that the UIGEA safe harbor clause for that data does apply to the Wire Act.
    Opinion is unlikely to impact legal online gambling
    Furthermore, there’s no need for legal online gambling states to hit the panic button.

    As opponents of online gambling have long stated, OLC opinions do not carry the force of law.

    And as attorney Thomas A. Decker told the Pennsylvania legislature in a 2017 letter from the Coalition for a Safe and Regulated Internet:

    “The CSIG memo focuses on the unremarkable conclusion that an opinion distributed by OLC does not bind federal courts or receive more than the type of legal deference that might be afforded a law journal article or position paper. This is true and remains true in the event of any future OLC Opinion that disagrees with the currently stated OLC position.”

    Decker also said:

    “Furthermore, no state or state actors that pass laws legalizing online gaming would face criminal prosecution by DOJ. There is no record of nor legal precedent for DOJ to criminally prosecute a state legislator or state official for passing a state law that is later held to be preempted by federal law. Such a prosecution would not be in keeping with the First Amendment or the reservation of powers enshrined in the Tenth Amendment.”

    Bottom line
    The issuance of the opinion isn’t a positive development by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly, it has NJ online gambling sites in its crosshairs to some extent.

    How impactful it will be will largely depend on whether it’s just lip service to the powerful interests that pushed for it, or if the DOJ plans on trying to dismantle the legal online gaming industries of more than a dozen states.

    The most likely scenario is the opinion:

    Has little to no impact on current online gaming states;
    Harms ongoing efforts at legalization in other states; and
    Forces the courts and/or Congress to fix the country’s federal gambling laws.
    Steve Ruddock
    Steve covers nearly every angle of online poker in his job as a full-time freelance poker writer. His primary focus is the developing legal and legislative picture for regulated US online poker and gambling.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.playnj.com/news/wire-act-opinion-nj/28648/amp/

  • CuradoKev

    Being from Michigan, it’s amazing how I can go online and play the Lotto games (instant lotto, keno) using my credit card to fund it. So I could go into debt quickly, but it’s legal because the money goes to education. However DFS and online poker are dealing with this garbage.

    I have played online poker through all the sites through various pay mechanisms and will continue for the last 5+ years. I know the Michigan will reintroduce the “online poker” bills in 2019 and they should pass with our new governor since Snyder vetoed it before he left in December. But this will complicate the whole thing…….so unfortunate – some day all I want is PokerStars again :))

  • electrichaz3

    Everyday. I wish I could play a $50 rebuy right now lol

  • Smallchimp

    If gambling itself is an issue, ban it all, online and casinos. If taxation is the issue, aren’t large wins taxed anyways? Small wins and buy-ins aren’t taxed (as far as I know) and I guess that could be addressed? It just comes down to profit and they want to be able to gatekeep it. Embarrassing. Welcome to the internet age, jerks.

  • Joe1Coal

    The Justice Department’s new reading of the law won’t affect intrastate online wagering, where patrons bet only from within a single state.

    Won’t affect sports gambling, as states are set up individually. Like NJ.

    DFS- I think at this point. You would see major lawsuits. They wouldn’t just close up shop and say “seee ya” like randy marsh from South Park. This may be a fight. But, in less than two years, there will be a new president, a new DOJ, and new guidance.

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

Subforum Index

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (IL). Gambling problem? Call 1-800-Gambler (NJ/WV/PA), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO) or 1-800-BETS OFF (IA). 21+. NJ/PA/WV/IN/IA/CO/IL only.