NBC / Gambling Law Suit

[oldbookguy]

A most interesting case.

www.tmz.com (http://www.tmz.com) is reporting four Georgia ladies are sueing NBC for engaging in illegal gambling over the TV show Deal or No Deal.

Hummmm, you pay .99 to play with a chance of winning 10K - 100k.

Gambling? Wire Act?

Story:
http://ww.tmz.com/2007/06/01/the-case-of-the-deal-or-no-deal-case/

Comments / Thoughts?

obg

[Karak567]

This has already been discussed here and we came to the conclusion that it is legal because you can play for free online.

[EGO]

You don't have to pay anything. You can play for free on the internet. The .99 is a service charge that the cell companies apply for that particular text message. Whether or not DOND gets a kickback from that, I don't know.

It doesn't look like gambling to me, since there's an option to play for free. The act of placing a wager is fundamental to gambling, after all.

[WhiteWolf]

I'm not an expert in law, but that never stops anyone from posting opinions on the internet: So long as NBC provided a free alternative for entry, they should be in the clear. In this case, it seems they did (playing via their web site). It's similar to those contest tickets fast food places give out with each purchase: you can send in for free entries, and thus under the law it is not considered gambling or a lottery.

[Uglyowl]

Interesting thought (I still think the ladies are idiots), but I would be surprised if it got anywhere. All of these have a free option though and I always wondered if that was saying "Our game is free, but for the convenience of text" is cost money.

On another note, these ladies are idiots for paying, when a free option was available.

The first case (according to NYTimes) was thrown out and not heard in district court.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
It's similar to those contest tickets fast food places give out with each purchase: you can send in for free entries, and thus under the law it is not considered gambling or a lottery.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I don't think the ladies will win, but there is a distinct difference between this and a fast food "Monopoly piece", for example. When you buy a big mac w/ the piece attached, at least you purchased a Big Mac. Here the product is purely a chance to win with no other tangible product.

[MiltonFriedman]

That is what legal counsel tells me, HOWEVER, the contest sponsor is subject to regulation in almost every state. It is a minefield, but can be walked through.

For NBC to go the paid entry route is idiotic, the returns from a hit show aren't enough ?

Besides, do we need the FCC in the gaming regulation business.

I would give these claims about a 50% of getting some positive return.

[MiltonFriedman]

... did we ?

[oldbookguy]

It was thrown out of State Court (no jurisdiction), this is now a Federal Court Case.

obg

[dbirider16]

I don't understand this. How much money are they suing for? And why do they deserve money, and not anyone else?

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this. How much money are they suing for? And why do they deserve money, and not anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who knows, I have not seen the suit.

I will say this, we NEED to embrace this as gambling and root for NBC!

It is not the method (a cell phone bill) but the act, transfering money to a third party (the promoter) who splits with NBC to pay off the 'bet' (a chance to win 10-100K) even if you can play free you can play for money as well.

We can play poker for 'free' or for money, just the Feds want our funding to be illegal.

Maybe the sites should have an agreement with Sprint, text a 'chance' allowing you to play poker with 'X' number of chips for a chance to win via a third party who splits with the poker site?

Same thing in my book......

obg

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]


Maybe the sites should have an agreement with Sprint, text a 'chance' allowing you to play poker with 'X' number of chips for a chance to win via a third party who splits with the poker site?

Same thing in my book......

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant! I like the thinking.

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's similar to those contest tickets fast food places give out with each purchase: you can send in for free entries, and thus under the law it is not considered gambling or a lottery.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I don't think the ladies will win, but there is a distinct difference between this and a fast food "Monopoly piece", for example. When you buy a big mac w/ the piece attached, at least you purchased a Big Mac. Here the product is purely a chance to win with no other tangible product.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think there is a difference. Getting a Big Mac with your ticket does not free McDonald's from their obligation to provide a free method to enter their contest. That is why you always hear or see "No purchase required" whenever one of these contests is advertised. Once again, I am not a lawyer, but that is my layman's understanding of the matter.

[oldbookguy]

First and formost, we want NBC to win!

Now, there is a difference here. With the Big Mac, you get the burger, same price either way (before and after contest) and you can get a mail in free as well, all in all, it is free.

Here, you spend .99 per text message, you get only a chance at a prizes, 10K.

First you have to 'guess' the correct suit case, then be the lucky draw person from thousands after that.

Gambling pure and simple. Or you can go online free, however, that does not change the fact to text message you pay an entrance fee. Fee is split between the 'promoter' and NBC (after of course Sprint gets a fee first).

obg


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's similar to those contest tickets fast food places give out with each purchase: you can send in for free entries, and thus under the law it is not considered gambling or a lottery.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I don't think the ladies will win, but there is a distinct difference between this and a fast food "Monopoly piece", for example. When you buy a big mac w/ the piece attached, at least you purchased a Big Mac. Here the product is purely a chance to win with no other tangible product.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think there is a difference. Getting a Big Mac with your ticket does not free McDonald's from their obligation to provide a free method to enter their contest. That is why you always hear or see "No purchase required" whenever one of these contests is advertised. Once again, I am not a lawyer, but that is my layman's understanding of the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PokeReader]

The .99 is a premium texting rate, for which NBC gets paid a significant fee per call. Also, they might have been in technical violation in the first couple of weeks, as they did not mention the free option in the commercials or TV shows, it was just in tiny, basically unreadable fine print on the bottom of the screen. I was curious and was barely able to make it out freezing it on my tivo. I am curious whether they will consider this a contest, it really seemed more like really stupid gambling to me.

[pikachu]

In the case of a lottery, there is a player pool, and from that pool someone is awarded a prize. Everyone in the player pool bought a ticket, essentially wagering their ticket price that they would win the prize. There is no way to get into the player pool for free.

In the case of NBC, where no purchase is necessary, some enter the pool by phone, some by internet. Not all of the players in the pool had to spend money to get into the pool. Therefore, it would not be considered gambling because you could have opted to enter the player pool for free.