|
PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
The PPA has completed its research and has decided the appropriate direction we should take with our comments. The biggest thing of note is that we should try to get "unlawful Internet gambling" defined. This is our chance to neuter the regs. I hope everyone will post a few, and will be forward this to their poker playing friends. Thanks.
http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news...le.php?DID=293 On October 1st, the Department of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve issued proposed regulations which, if finalized, would direct banks, credit card companies and other payment systems to take certain steps to block payments for “Unlawful Internet Gambling.” These regulations are an outgrowth of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) which was enacted last October. The proposed rule is subject to a 60-day public comment period, during which companies, trade associations and individual people have the chance to express to the regulators their feelings about the proposed regulation. PPA is encouraging its members to file comments with both the Dept. of Treasury and the Federal Reserve urging the regulators to exempt poker from the effect of the regulations, and to avoid adopting regulations that impact on personal privacy. We urge you to comment in your own words -- the regulators take individualized comments far more seriously than large numbers of obviously scripted comments. However, in an effort to help our members formulate their comments, we are providing the talking points below: 1. The proposed regulations should be modified to clarify that they don’t cover games predominantly determined by skill, such as poker, bridge, mahjong and backgammon. Section 5362(1)(a) of UIGEA defines a bet or wager as “the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance,…” “Subject to chance” can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but in a gambling context it should reasonably be taken to mean games like roulette or slots where players bet against “the house” and success is determined by chance. Poker players compete, not against the house, but against each other, and the success of a player over any significant time interval is determined by that players’ skill. 2. The regulators must define what is and isn’t “unlawful Internet gambling.” The federal and state laws governing Internet gambling are very ambiguous -- nearly all of them were written before the advent of the Internet, and it is not clear how they apply to Internet gaming. In the proposed rule, the regulators emphasize that it is not their intention to clarify this question, because to do so would require them to examine the laws of every state with respect to every gaming modality. Yet that is exactly what they are requiring every bank and payment system to do individually. 3. The regulators should refrain from implementing the regulations until the U.S. resolves its international trade disputes. The World Trade Organization has found the U.S. to be out of compliance with its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services because of its attempts at prohibiting Internet gambling. This is likely to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars in lost market share and export opportunities. The U.S. government is in negotiations with its trading partners over this matter. Inasmuch as these regulations arguably make that situation worse, the regulators should hold off on finalizing the regulations until the U.S. can resolve its international trade obligations. 4. The proposed regulations should not infringe on personal privacy. UIGEA deputizes banks and payment systems and turns them into the Internet morality police. These regulations should not compel banks to scrutinize the private transactions of individual poker players and others. To do so is hostile to the personal and financial privacy of every American with a credit card or checking account. 5. The UIGEA and the enforcing regulations should not apply to Internet poker nationwide. Federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting and very few states have any laws against Internet poker. These regulations should be clear to only block those transactions which are in fact against the law. Games of skill which are not outlawed under current federal law – such as poker, chess, bridge and majong -- should be exempt from the UIGEA and the regulations. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
I'm not sure if this argument is valid:
Forget about calling up our congressmen and what not. What we really should be doing is calling ESPN and have THEM spend some $$/time on getting this done. Are they? Have they, as a business, spoken against this bill? Can they? They got the dough and they got leverage because they are owned by Disney, and we all can/should assume that Disney has its hands on some lobbying and [censored]. Well - since ESPN is hugely responsible for the boom of online poker and since online poker is a massive catalyist for the continued growth in profits for ESPN re: poker (video games and broadcasts and advertisement space), shouldn't ESPN be taking care of this business? ESPN IS THE WSOP, and the WSOP is being taken over by online players. Personally, I think that EVERY MAJOR ONLINE PLAYER should be on the phone with ESPN to talk to them about what they are prepared to do. Barry |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
Forget about calling up our congressmen and what not. [/ QUOTE ] I appreicate your sharing your idea about ESPN, but why would we "forget" everything else? We have lobbyists in D.C. who NEED our support (i.e., this is not some random letter writing campaign). I can see ADDING ESPN to our efforts, but why would we drop everything else? Even if ESPN were willing to carry our water, we'd still have to do our writing to support that effort. Also, we can try ESPN, but it's unlikely they'll be with us, IMO. The NFL is STRONGLY against us, and it's hard to see ESPN lobbying strongly against the interests of the NFL. Sure, we should all call and write to ESPN, but let's not pin our hopes on them. I hope you'll call ESPN, your congressman, your senators, and write a comment or two regarding the UIGEA regs. Thanks! |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
This is a little bit loose, but at the same time, if I can offer an idea or two, you are more than welcome to it:
To begin, I'm sorry if my statement was too brash. OBVIOUSLY, we should call our congressmen and all other pertinent parties in support of online poker. However, we should not tend to overvalue letters to our congressman and, at the same time, undervalue the institutions that really get things done: lobbyists and/or large money institutions. Barry |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
i have a few comments on the talking points.
[ QUOTE ] 1. The proposed regulations should be modified to clarify that they don’t cover games predominantly determined by skill, such as poker, bridge, mahjong and backgammon. Section 5362(1)(a) of UIGEA defines a bet or wager as “the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance,…” “Subject to chance” can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but in a gambling context it should reasonably be taken to mean games like roulette or slots where players bet against “the house” and success is determined by chance. Poker players compete, not against the house, but against each other, and the success of a player over any significant time interval is determined by that players’ skill. [/ QUOTE ] poker, backgammon, bridge (and i assume mahjong) are clearly games that are "subject to chance." chance certainly plays a part in those games, big or small, and by the bill's language those games included. you're suggesting a significant change to the regulations, and you need to provide justification for your assertion that "“Subject to chance” ... should reasonably be taken to mean games like roulette or slots where players bet against “the house” and success is determined by chance." basically you say that we should replace the bill's authors' language, "subject to chance," with much weaker language, "determined by chance" without saying why. i think a better way to frame the talking points would be roll up the discussion of skill vs luck into point 5, and avoid discussing the "subject to chance" language as it's not very favorable to us. just stick with the case law that the wire act doesn't apply to poker. citations on some of these things would be useful too. [ QUOTE ] 2. The regulators must define what is and isn’t “unlawful Internet gambling.” The federal and state laws governing Internet gambling are very ambiguous -- nearly all of them were written before the advent of the Internet, and it is not clear how they apply to Internet gaming. In the proposed rule, the regulators emphasize that it is not their intention to clarify this question, because to do so would require them to examine the laws of every state with respect to every gaming modality. Yet that is exactly what they are requiring every bank and payment system to do individually. [/ QUOTE ] i think this is the strongest point and you should lead with this. it would also be worth mentioning the discrepancies between the DOJ's interpretation of gambling law with some of the case law that is out there, as this makes banks' jobs even harder. [ QUOTE ] 3. The regulators should refrain from implementing the regulations until the U.S. resolves its international trade disputes. The World Trade Organization has found the U.S. to be out of compliance with its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services because of its attempts at prohibiting Internet gambling. This is likely to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars in lost market share and export opportunities. The U.S. government is in negotiations with its trading partners over this matter. Inasmuch as these regulations arguably make that situation worse, the regulators should hold off on finalizing the regulations until the U.S. can resolve its international trade obligations. [/ QUOTE ] i would make this section a bit more forceful. first, delete the first sentence, as it makes it sound too much like we're still in the middle of some dispute that could go either way when in reality we've already lost. then i'd rewrite the point as follows: The World Trade Organization has found the U.S. to be out of compliance with its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services because of its attempts at prohibiting Internet gambling. these regulations bring us further out compliance by _______________ [not sure on details], and our noncompliance is likely to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars in lost market share and export opportunities. The U.S. government is in negotiations with its trading partners over this matter. the regulators should hold off on finalizing the regulations until the U.S. can resolve its international trade obligations and take steps to rebuilding its credibility in the international trade community as we encourage china and other nations to live up to their WTO obligations. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if this argument is valid: Forget about calling up our congressmen and what not. What we really should be doing is calling ESPN and have THEM spend some $$/time on getting this done. Are they? Have they, as a business, spoken against this bill? Can they? They got the dough and they got leverage because they are owned by Disney, and we all can/should assume that Disney has its hands on some lobbying and [censored]. Well - since ESPN is hugely responsible for the boom of online poker and since online poker is a massive catalyist for the continued growth in profits for ESPN re: poker (video games and broadcasts and advertisement space), shouldn't ESPN be taking care of this business? ESPN IS THE WSOP, and the WSOP is being taken over by online players. Personally, I think that EVERY MAJOR ONLINE PLAYER should be on the phone with ESPN to talk to them about what they are prepared to do. Barry [/ QUOTE ] Forget ESPN, or even Disney, those crooks have no desire to risk a good thing. What other major event with a prize pool the size of the WSOP is paid by the players??? Not only that the WSOP deducts for it's expenses! The joke is with all the side business let alone the TV rights the WSOP is a profit before a sinle player sits down! There are no expenses, in any other "sport" the pro's would be paid to play. Give me a break! D$D |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.
#1 has the same problem; you and I may think this, but, if pressed, the regulators could very well come to the exact opposite conclusion. #3 and, to a lesser extent, #5, are the arguments that should be focused on. Don't ask the regulation drafters to come up with their own interpretations; instead, delay them and/or point them to existing case law. This is a much, much better approach than relying on people who likely know nothing about poker to decide whether it's a game of skill. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 2. The regulators must define what is and isn’t “unlawful Internet gambling.” The federal and state laws governing Internet gambling are very ambiguous -- nearly all of them were written before the advent of the Internet, and it is not clear how they apply to Internet gaming. In the proposed rule, the regulators emphasize that it is not their intention to clarify this question, because to do so would require them to examine the laws of every state with respect to every gaming modality. Yet that is exactly what they are requiring every bank and payment system to do individually. [/ QUOTE ] i think this is the strongest point and you should lead with this. it would also be worth mentioning the discrepancies between the DOJ's interpretation of gambling law with some of the case law that is out there, as this makes banks' jobs even harder. [/ QUOTE ] I think we could also mention the liklihood of legal activity being blocked because of the conservative nature of financial entities. If it is unclear whether or not internet poker is allowed in a particular jurisdiction, and the regs provide no guidance, what is a bank going to do? Likley they will act as if it is illegal. If, say, four years down the road, the statutes are interpreted to show that it was legal, then that's four years of a legal activity that I couldn't engage in because of the failure of clarity in the regs. Why should the legality or illegality of an act be trumped by the risk averseness of the financial processors? |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
I posted this in Tournament Circuit, lost some of the formatting transferring it here:
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The proposed regulations should be modified to clarify that they don’t cover games predominantly determined by skill, such as poker, bridge, mahjong and backgammon. Section 5362(1)(a) of UIGEA defines a bet or wager as “the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance,…” “Subject to chance” can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but in a gambling context it should reasonably be taken to mean games like roulette or slots where players bet against “the house” and success is determined by chance. Poker players compete, not against the house, but against each other, and the success of a player over any significant time interval is determined by that players’ skill. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is both wrong and irrelevant. It is wrong because under no reasonable reading of the phrase "game subject to chance" could poker not qualify. It is a game. It is subject to chance. Regulations are promulgated by the executive branch to implement legislation passed by Congress. It would be improper for a regulation to take a position at odds with the clear language of a statute. If this silly argument advocating a bizarre reading of statutory language is to be made anywhere, it needs to be made to a court in a lawsuit challenging the UIGEA, not to a regulatory agency. It is also completely irrelevant. The UIGEA applies to unlawful Internet gambling. If online poker is not unlawful, the UIGEA doesn't apply. If adopted, this argument regarding "game subject to chance" would only support an argument that the UIGEA doesn't apply to online poker even though it is unlawful, which is silly. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. The regulators must define what is and isn’t “unlawful Internet gambling.” The federal and state laws governing Internet gambling are very ambiguous -- nearly all of them were written before the advent of the Internet, and it is not clear how they apply to Internet gaming. In the proposed rule, the regulators emphasize that it is not their intention to clarify this question, because to do so would require them to examine the laws of every state with respect to every gaming modality. Yet that is exactly what they are requiring every bank and payment system to do individually. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The underlying legislation deliberately, explicitly took no position on defining unlawful Internet gambling. Therefore, regulations implementing that legislation cannot do so, period. In addition, it would be improper, and probably unconstitutional, for the federal government, let alone a federal regulatory agency, to take positions regarding the meaning of ambiguous state laws. Not to mention, why are we asking the executive branch, which includes the DoJ who has taken the legally indefensible position that online poker violates the Wire Act, to define whether online poker is illegal? If they were to do so, which they won't for the reasons set forth above, we wouldn't like the answer. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. The regulators should refrain from implementing the regulations until the U.S. resolves its international trade disputes. The World Trade Organization has found the U.S. to be out of compliance with its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services because of its attempts at prohibiting Internet gambling. This is likely to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars in lost market share and export opportunities. The U.S. government is in negotiations with its trading partners over this matter. Inasmuch as these regulations arguably make that situation worse, the regulators should hold off on finalizing the regulations until the U.S. can resolve its international trade obligations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a good point. It will probably fall on deaf ears, but it's worth saying. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. The proposed regulations should not infringe on personal privacy. UIGEA deputizes banks and payment systems and turns them into the Internet morality police. These regulations should not compel banks to scrutinize the private transactions of individual poker players and others. To do so is hostile to the personal and financial privacy of every American with a credit card or checking account. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unfortunately, this battle was lost a long time ago. Banks already are de facto agents of federal law enforcement. If you don't want your privacy invaded, the only alternative is to keep $2.8 million dollars in cash in your home, like a former WSOP final tablist. There was an amusing article a while back in the Economist regarding the Patriot Act reporting provisions for banks. The banks, rather than risk severe penalties, took an overly expansive view of what needed to be disclosed to the Feds and literally buried them in an avalanche of data that was so big as to be completely useless because they lacked the manpower and tools to be able to wade through it. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. The UIGEA and the enforcing regulations should not apply to Internet poker nationwide. Federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting and very few states have any laws against Internet poker. These regulations should be clear to only block those transactions which are in fact against the law. Games of skill which are not outlawed under current federal law – such as poker, chess, bridge and majong -- should be exempt from the UIGEA and the regulations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See point 2 above, this is essentially the same point as asking them to define "unlawful Internet gambling". While the sentence about federal case law is correct, it's been very few cases, and the legality of online poker has never been addressed directly by any court. I'd love to hear from either the PPA or the online poker industry why this has not been done via a declaratory judgment action. I'm pretty sure I know the answer. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm not sure if this argument is valid: Forget about calling up our congressmen and what not. What we really should be doing is calling ESPN and have THEM spend some $$/time on getting this done. Are they? Have they, as a business, spoken against this bill? Can they? They got the dough and they got leverage because they are owned by Disney, and we all can/should assume that Disney has its hands on some lobbying and [censored]. Well - since ESPN is hugely responsible for the boom of online poker and since online poker is a massive catalyist for the continued growth in profits for ESPN re: poker (video games and broadcasts and advertisement space), shouldn't ESPN be taking care of this business? ESPN IS THE WSOP, and the WSOP is being taken over by online players. Personally, I think that EVERY MAJOR ONLINE PLAYER should be on the phone with ESPN to talk to them about what they are prepared to do. Barry [/ QUOTE ] Forget ESPN, or even Disney, those crooks have no desire to risk a good thing. What other major event with a prize pool the size of the WSOP is paid by the players??? Not only that the WSOP deducts for it's expenses! The joke is with all the side business let alone the TV rights the WSOP is a profit before a sinle player sits down! There are no expenses, in any other "sport" the pro's would be paid to play. Give me a break! D$D [/ QUOTE ] lol, what are you talking about? If you don't have lobbyists who have a vested interest in mainintaing online poker in the united states, you have no "economic benefit" or "social benefit" factor that is going to get Congress to care. You need tangible benefits that Congress will see that will outweigh its own reasons for including online poker in the Act. So, saying that poker is a game of "skill" doesn't mean a [censored] thing, because you are not going to convince a Congressman that this nuance is more important than appealing to a religious/socially conscious community of voters. Poker has a sufficient amount of business coverage and media coverage that lobbyists can become active in tailoring the language of this act. So, while we voice our opinions to Congressmen who have their secretaries read that [censored] while they are on the phone with colleagues/businesses/religious groups/etc. that really do matter, it's important to also appeal to potential lobbyists and cue in their minds what they are missing out on by choosing to attack another political venue this month. and if I can't play online poker at night, I'm not gonna watch ESPN World Series either, because that would just [censored] depress me. So, yeah, Disney definitely has something to lose here. Barry |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit. #1 has the same problem; you and I may think this, but, if pressed, the regulators could very well come to the exact opposite conclusion. #3 and, to a lesser extent, #5, are the arguments that should be focused on. Don't ask the regulation drafters to come up with their own interpretations; instead, delay them and/or point them to existing case law. This is a much, much better approach than relying on people who likely know nothing about poker to decide whether it's a game of skill. [/ QUOTE ] These are good points, and I urge the PPA to take these points into consideration and revise the talking points. The regs, as currently written are not that strong. Asking for things such as clear definitions could cause them to be made stronger. The regs are fairly weak right now, let's not encourage the DOT to fix them so they actually mean something. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
OK, Time to truly coordinate our comments so they are in the best interests of online poker players. I am posting here first, but will also post this at the PPA website. For further understanding of the proposed regulations, people should also check out I. Nelson Rose's article at CompatiblePoker's site:
http://www.compatiblepoker.com/propo...review.cms.htm My thoughts in general are still that the greatest threat we face is bank blocking our (legal) transactions because that has no legal downside for them but there are clear risks if they let a"bad" one through. I doubt our transactions are enough to cause them financial loss sufficient to offset the risk. I see the best solution as insuring that our e-wallet transfers are not blocked (though I really hope some company with better service than epassporte comes along). Specifically, I suggest the following differences with the PPA's proposed comments: 1) I think there is no way we are going to get the regulation writers to declare poker is a game of skill and thus not covered. The UIGEA language the PPA quotes here is irrelevant to the discussion, however, because this definition of gambling has no legal use under the UIGEA. If an already existing State law (we already know there is no such Federal law) makes poker gambling, then the UIGEA requires poker transactions from that state to be blocked regardless of any interpretation of "subject to chance." It is, however, important to emphasize that the UIGEA clearly does not contemplate blocking transactions for EVERY game played for money on the internet. Certain games are obviously not gambling (chess), certain ones are in a grey area (poker, backgammon, bridge, mahjong) and others clearly are gambling (sports betting, slots). Point 1 should therefore emphasize how important it is to make sure legal gaming transactions are not blocked. 2) I agree that it will most likely be bad for us if the regulators are required to define "unlawful internet gambling." And I also believe their reluctance to do this is very strong. Thus I disagree with this point most strongly. Our comments should try to turn this to our advantage. If they feel it is too difficult for them, a body of lawyers in the Federal Government, to do, then of course it is also too difficult for banks to do. We should emphasize, therefore, that any bank that truly wants to correctly block illegal transactions while not blocking legal transactions will have to expend far more time and money to have "correct" policies than they estimate. The UIGEA specifically allows the regs to exclude the regulations from requiring practices that are too burdensome and costly. The push then should be for a bank policy that only requires blocking of only that gambling that is clearly illegal in all the US - sportsbetting and casino games. In states that have other specific laws about internet gambling, a bank operating in those states can/should also have a blocking policy in accord with that state's law. Banks should not have to know or interpret vague laws or laws of other states (again to costly). 3) I have no problem with this point, though I doubt it will make much difference to these particular bureaucrats. 4) Personal privacy is an issue, and reviewing every individual's transactions is again requiring too much. The regs should only focus on where the transaction is directed, not where it came from - in other words, its too much work and way to invasive to be asking customers where the money is going, its not too much to ask the far smaller number of recipients what it will be used for (of course if the recipient is an offshore bank or e-wallet they may not say, they have to comply with other countries rules, not ours). 5) This really a repeat of #1. Again, I just dont see much sympathy for poker coming from these guys. But sympathy for all sorts of legal businesses and the banks, I do expect. Bottom line, the key is to get these guys to allow the banks to set simple, unambiguous policies as to whats allowed or not (these policies should then stay away from poker - in most states - because poker laws are the pinnacle of ambiguity). Since there is a lot of gray area out there, the regs should specify that a bank policy which blocks transactions to THE ACCOUNTS OF sportsbetting and casino sites is sufficient compliance at the Federal level, and which otherwise comports with any unambiguous state law of the state the bank is operating in is sufficient at the state level. This I think (though please try and persuade me otherwise) is the best we can get and, hopefully, will still allow unrestricted transfers to e-wallets/foreign banks (because you know some of them will stay open to us poker players despite US pressure). Skallagrim |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
Besides my previous posted comments, I submitted one about the difficulty of a US bank dealing with its correspondent foreign bank when the US bank attempts to block an UIG transaction from the foreign bank. I urged the regulators to exempt cross border transactions on the grounds that the potential cost to US banks made applying the UIGEA to cross border transactions not feasible.
|
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. I think there is a much greater chance they throw everything under "unlawful gambling" instead of saying everything but poker is "unlawful." |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
2) I agree that it will most likely be bad for us if the regulators are required to define "unlawful internet gambling." [/ QUOTE ] This is extremely important. We really do not give the regulators the opportunity to define unlawful internet gaming. They will almost certainly lump poker in with everything else. At worst, keep the status quo in regards to what constitutes unlawful internet gaming, which is a very undefined murky area. At best, get the Wexler bill through and have poker recognized as a "skill game". |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
I am in the minority on the definition issue. If the regulators did define online poker to be UIG, then an Action for Declaratory Judgment would be easier to bring because standing and ripeness issues would not exist. In addition, this definition is contrary to established federal case law.
The vague definition may cause banks to overblock and make such litigation more difficult to bring in federal court. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
This is a little bit loose, but at the same time, if I can offer an idea or two, you are more than welcome to it: To begin, I'm sorry if my statement was too brash. OBVIOUSLY, we should call our congressmen and all other pertinent parties in support of online poker. However, we should not tend to overvalue letters to our congressman and, at the same time, undervalue the institutions that really get things done: lobbyists and/or large money institutions. Barry [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. I guess I'd say this isn't about letter writing. We do have lobbyists. They need our letters to support their efforts. Also, my OP doesn't mention writing to Congress at all....it's about commenting on the UIGEA regs, which is an extremely important topic right now. Maybe we can start a new thread on your topic if you like. Thanks. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
basically you say that we should replace the bill's authors' language, "subject to chance," with much weaker language, "determined by chance" without saying why. [/ QUOTE ] Thanks for the comments. I guess I should clarify that these are not my talking points...these are the PPA's. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit. [/ QUOTE ] We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] #2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit. [/ QUOTE ] We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition. [/ QUOTE ] Can you expand on the reasons behind why? Is it something along the lines of what JPFisher said? Thanks [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
I am in the minority on the definition issue. If the regulators did define online poker to be UIG, then an Action for Declaratory Judgment would be easier to bring because standing and ripeness issues would not exist. In addition, this definition is contrary to established federal case law. The vague definition may cause banks to overblock and make such litigation more difficult to bring in federal court. [/ QUOTE ] What are the standing and ripeness issues to which you refer? Why is, "I play poker for a living, I tried to transfer money to an online poker site, it was blocked" not sufficient to satisfy standing and ripeness? Any online site as a plaintiff could satisfy them now as well. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] #2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit. [/ QUOTE ] We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition. [/ QUOTE ] Put me in the Mason and Bluffthis camp until I get a decent reason to follow this lead. All this seems to do is protect off-shore interests and any future talks on legislation or legal court fights. This is a bigger loose than letting the regulations go unchallenged in total. If the regualtors specifically include poker then even the WTO crap goes away as no one has a beef and even the off-shores have their opportunity for a new payment method that is even more expensive to utilize pops up or on-line poker dies. If poker is excluded then FT and PS reap the benifits of being existing players in the US market and everyone is playing catch up. Here Mason and Bluffthis's worst fears come to pass. Either way we pay more to an e-pisspoorservice in a tax of our poker money even less regualted under the table further off shore, or the barrier to new market entry is tougher without a regulated level playing field. D$D |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
If a bank mistakenly blocks an online poker transaction, who can you sue in federal court. The regs specifically protect the bank from liability. If you file an Action for Declaratory Judgment against the AG etc., they may claim that no case in controversy exists because you are not under threat of prosecution.
But if a regulation making online poker a UIG, then you at least have a case in controversy. I am not stating that the above problem cannot be solved, but I would rather not have it if litigation is necessary. Anyway I previously posted a comment with a proposed definition of UIG which I submitted. I do not mention poker in the definition or my suggested examples. I posted it in a previous thread about comments to the regs. If anyone wants I can repost it. I doubt that it will matter. I don't think that the Agencies drafting the proposed regs will change them. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
If a bank mistakenly blocks an online poker transaction, who can you sue in federal court. The regs specifically protect the bank from liability. If you file an Action for Declaratory Judgment against the AG etc., they may claim that no case in controversy exists because you are not under threat of prosecution. But if a regulation making online poker a UIG, then you at least have a case in controversy. I am not stating that the above problem cannot be solved, but I would rather not have it if litigation is necessary. Anyway I previously posted a comment with a proposed definition of UIG which I submitted. I do not mention poker in the definition or my suggested examples. I posted it in a previous thread about comments to the regs. If anyone wants I can repost it. I doubt that it will matter. I don't think that the Agencies drafting the proposed regs will change them. [/ QUOTE ] Im with JP. I guess Im agitating for all out war. Define whats illegal gambling, and hope to God Pat Robertson miseducated the bastard writing the regs. The regulations are not a solution or really an end. They HAVE the tools/laws to indict and waterboard a guilty plea from whomever is stupid enough to enter the US. They aren't coming after any of us, unless its the IRS. Lobby for weak regs if you want, but Id rather see a fight with a defined enemy. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that the Agencies drafting the proposed regs will change them. [/ QUOTE ] Why should they. Having been on the inside of one of these things I can tell you that usually they have looked at most of the angles and have lined up support from most of the players. This is a $365 Billion dollar game or more. This isn't the USDA writing a regualtion to see where the cut is on farm size or crops planted to see who gets part of the latest Congressional give away program. If the Banks don't have a problem with this we learn live with it and push for a Wexler type bill. We either make the banks uneasy or figure out how to limit the damage or how much more we are going to have to pay in fees to deposit in the mean time. Good luck with cashing a withdraw check, without having to go offshore to spend it........ D$D |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
Dear Regulators:
It has come to our attention that UIGEA has some flaws that might allow poker sites to operate and continue to accept US players. Additionally, the proposed regulations are ambiguous as to whether transactions to and from poker sites are prohibited. Please see the enclosed recommendations, where we have conveniently outlined how to make absolutely certain that online poker is completely and unambiguously prohibited, and that US financial institutions will block all transactions between US players and online poker sites. Sincerely, The Poker Players Alliance |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] #2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit. [/ QUOTE ] We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition. [/ QUOTE ] Me to my kids: "Maybe." Kids: "Does that mean yes?" Me: "It means I don't know yet." Kids: "But it doesn't mean no right?" Me: "I can give you an answer right now, but you might not like it..." Kids: "Maybe works." |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
Me to my kids: "Maybe." Kids: "Does that mean yes?" Me: "It means I don't know yet." Kids: "But it doesn't mean no right?" Me: "I can give you an answer right now, but you might not like it..." Kids: "Maybe works." [/ QUOTE ] PPA: "But we have to know RIGHT NOW!" Regulators: "Then the answer is NO, and that's final." It's nothing short of insanity to think that the regulators won't go for the broadest (safest) definition of which forms of online gambling are unlawful. The PPA might just succeed in getting the rest of the poker sites cut off from the US. Good job, guys. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] #2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit. [/ QUOTE ] We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition. [/ QUOTE ] This has now gone past 'terrible idea' and is well on its way to 'one of the worst ideas I've ever heard'. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
Was my post to long to get the point across? The folks who write these regs have realized what I have been saying all along: applying various state laws written mostly in the early 1900's which may or may not apply to poker, the internet, bridge, backgammon, and all the other gray things, is an intellectual and legal nightmare.
To placate the anti-gambling folks the current regs basically encourage banks to do what Frist and the DOJ could not achieve through legislation: ban transactions to all for-money games. If we are going to stop this we have to get them to realize how much otherwise perfectlty legal US businesses will suffer. We must also emphasize that the banks who care about having such businesses as customers will be driven crazy trying to comply. Hence the way out is not to force them to make the defintion they refuse to make, but to have the regs say explicitly that the required bank practices/policies ALSO DONT HAVE TO MAKE THAT DEFINITION. The regs should say that the banks need only have a policy to prevent transactions to sportsbooks (and maybe online casinos) unless they are banks in Louisianna, Illinois, Washington, and the few other states that have very specific laws regarding internet play - those banks have to comply with those laws too. To require the banks to do anything else will either harm legal US businesses or require the banks to do some seriously costly work. Seriously costly work is - per the UIGEA statute - good grounds to not require it. Skallagrim PS - much as I, as an attorney, would look forward to litigation (and understand the opportunity - and danger - that litigation brings), I, as an online poker player, would much rather see regs that dont stop me from playing until a lawyer gets a court to say I can. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
Skall, if you remember my proposed definition, it did exactly what you stated. It defined UIG as sportsbetting, except horse racing and fantasy sports, and any other online gambling that is expressly banned by state statute.
I doubt that the regulators will accept any definition because they want overblocking. I think that US banks will find that overblocking will cost them lots of customers, problems with correspondent foreign banks and money. They may just decide to ignore the regs because they are pretty toothless. However, if WTO doesn't force the hand of the DEMS in Congress, the iMEGA loses and Kaplan loses, then litigation will result. I think that you have a year to prepare. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
I am in the minority on the definition issue. If the regulators did define online poker to be UIG, then an Action for Declaratory Judgment would be easier to bring because standing and ripeness issues would not exist. In addition, this definition is contrary to established federal case law.... [/ QUOTE ] I think of it as "precedented" federal case law, as opposed to established, because while there have been some favorable rulings at the Circuit Courts of Appeals level, (the 5th being the most prominent, if memory serves me correctly,) one circuit's position does not necessarily affect another's. As the Supreme Court has not weighed in by ruling or granting cert on this matter, I feel that using "established" to describe the status is possibly being a bit optimistic. Not trying to nitpick, just think that it serves us better to keep this in mind if we are going to "hang our hats" on this. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] #2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit. [/ QUOTE ] We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition. [/ QUOTE ] Put me in the Mason and Bluffthis camp until I get a decent reason to follow this lead. All this seems to do is protect off-shore interests and any future talks on legislation or legal court fights. This is a bigger loose than letting the regulations go unchallenged in total. If the regualtors specifically include poker then even the WTO crap goes away as no one has a beef and even the off-shores have their opportunity for a new payment method that is even more expensive to utilize pops up or on-line poker dies. If poker is excluded then FT and PS reap the benifits of being existing players in the US market and everyone is playing catch up. Here Mason and Bluffthis's worst fears come to pass. Either way we pay more to an e-pisspoorservice in a tax of our poker money even less regualted under the table further off shore, or the barrier to new market entry is tougher without a regulated level playing field. D$D [/ QUOTE ] In what camp are BluffThis and Mason on the UIGEA talking points? I've seen nothing from them on this issue. As for the definition of "unlawful Internet gambling", it seems the murky legality is what has allowed foreign operators in the market while keeping out American ones, so I don't follow how this is somehow based on what's best for FT or PS. If poker is excluded, we're in dreamland. How is that anyone's worst fear?!?!? "the barrier to new market entry is tougher without a regulated level playing field" I'm not following. You think MGM and Harrah's will need government help to enter the U.S. market? |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
my biggest fear is that my bank will close my account, and blacklist me from being able to reopen another bank acct if it catches me from cashing an online check, or using my bank card to fund my poker acct, (claiming im using my bank acct illegally.)naturally the regulations would have to take effect first, but i wish someone would write the letter i need to send and PM it to me, to make sure something like this doesnt ever happen in the future.
and on a side note, i dont see how it will work for me to fund paytru acct with my bank debit card after these regulations go into effect, cause then paytru will have to worry about being prosecuted if they dont stop all business with sites. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
If poker is excluded... [/ QUOTE ] Seriously, does anyone think poker would be excluded? |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
I am optimistic about poker ultimately getting recognized as legal - either Federally through a Wexler type bill, or in most states through a favorable court case.
I am pessimistic about the regulation writers ever giving us this gift. I am also pessimistic about the banks giving us this gift. But banks wont do what they dont have to - so regs that explicitly require only certain kinds of blocking policies which do not explicitly include poker is, IMHO, our best out. My only difference with JP's comment is that JP wants the regulations to state that only certain things (not including poker) are "unlawful internet gambling." I want the regs to state that in blocking "UIG" transactions, bank policy must include only certain clear things. Thats a very subtle difference that only lawyers and bureaucrats will understand, but I think its a difference that these bureaucrats will respond to - banks remain free (theoretically) to block other transactions, and the possibility exists of amending the regulations in response to legislation or court decisions to include other things later. And no one has to do what no one really can do: explicitly define what is and is not "UIG" in each of the 50 states. I believe if banks are told explicitly that their blocking policies only have to include the obvious, thats what most banks will do. If the regs continue to insist that banks must have policies to exclude everything that "is" UIG, they will exclude every conceivable thing. Skallagrim |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] #2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit. [/ QUOTE ] We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition. [/ QUOTE ] Put me in the Mason and Bluffthis camp until I get a decent reason to follow this lead. All this seems to do is protect off-shore interests and any future talks on legislation or legal court fights. This is a bigger loose than letting the regulations go unchallenged in total. If the regualtors specifically include poker then even the WTO crap goes away as no one has a beef and even the off-shores have their opportunity for a new payment method that is even more expensive to utilize pops up or on-line poker dies. If poker is excluded then FT and PS reap the benifits of being existing players in the US market and everyone is playing catch up. Here Mason and Bluffthis's worst fears come to pass. Either way we pay more to an e-pisspoorservice in a tax of our poker money even less regualted under the table further off shore, or the barrier to new market entry is tougher without a regulated level playing field. D$D [/ QUOTE ] In what camp are BluffThis and Mason on the UIGEA talking points? I've seen nothing from them on this issue. [/ QUOTE ] This "decision" in my opinion questions if the PPA is fighting for all poker players rights or those with a select business model. Mason and BluffThis' board make up issue. I am not convinced that because of this and a couple of other decisions since John came on board that there isn't at least a hint of a bias in the decision making of the board to take position that could be seen as favoring one segment of the poker world over that of others. No the decision by John not to hire me yet, or to say that the decision to wait on filling the grassroots position is not a major part of this reaoning. Although I do question the commitment of the PPA to building a long term grassroots advocacy if they decide to not fill this position in the original time frame let alone in two or three times the original "interview" window. Personally I've moved on to bigger and better things. [ QUOTE ] As for the definition of "unlawful Internet gambling", it seems the murky legality is what has allowed foreign operators in the market while keeping out American ones, so I don't follow how this is somehow based on what's best for FT or PS. If poker is excluded, we're in dreamland. How is that anyone's worst fear?!?!? [/ QUOTE ] Because not one thing the PPA has said the Poker World would do to gain entry into the US market in the form or a regualtory mix will every come to pass. Sure the market will open up and others who are in the wings or who let the market will try to re-enter, but who's position is the strongest? The major off-shore operators! They "own" the current portion of the US market and to some degree will get to shape the future of on-line poker market for some time. Any inovation that they can live with in their business model they can implement quicker than anyone else and keep market share. Think M$ and Apple. [ QUOTE ] "the barrier to new market entry is tougher without a regulated level playing field" I'm not following. You think MGM and Harrah's will need government help to enter the U.S. market? [/ QUOTE ] To some degree expect for direct tie ins to their live poker rooms and properties what can they offer than PS or FT can't match? Any inovation US regualtion like even solid age verification will never come to be. There would nver be any Nevada type Federal Poker Commission to resolve disputes nor even bless a single RNG. Those are just two issues the PPA claims to be for we'll never see. There are others. Then take the case of poker being included. Who has been harmed? PP? No they left the market. FT and PS go to court to "fight the good fight" the PPA raises the legal defense money from the membership or part of it, even with a complete donation drive failure; who won you the right to play on-line? Yep FT and PS. Even if they loose, I'm sure they feel they will get an injunction to block and blocking during the court fight. All in all, this is exactly the decision I would make if I owned a big piece of FT and or PS and could lead the PPA to get the membership to help my cause. I hope I am wrong, but I haven't seen a single thing to show me the PPA wants anyting but a pre-UIGEA world or a US regulatory scheme that specifically does not exlude FT or PS from staying in the market. Which is exactly what PP and every other room feared when they left the US market about a year ago. D$D |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
Skall, I understand your position. Good idea, instead of defining the term UIG and expecting the banks to apply it, you just tell banks that the only transactions that you must worry about must involve sportsbetting, other than horse racing and fantasy league, and any other games expressly prohibited by state law.
However, I think that the regulators are even less likely to make this reg, then define the term UIG. They know if they tell banks that you only have to worry about x, then the banks will never block y. The problem is that the regulators really want x, y and z banned regardless of whether they are covered under the UIGEA. So I proposed the same as a defintion of UIG for x only hoping to fool the regulators. I'll admit its a small hope. |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
[ QUOTE ]
No the decision by John not to hire me yet ... [/ QUOTE ] That's awesome [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
Re: PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points
The UIGEA is going to be litigated, however the regs end up. That litigation is an opportunity and a risk, but it could potentially set some unintended precedents for e-commerce in general, which will gather more allies to our side.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.