[BluffTHIS!]

It could also simply be that party and other sites are intending to challenge in court the legality of bans on .com advertising by online gaming concerns. The real question is can a cable channel be held criminally liable for running them. If not, then all party has to do is to just pay as they go instead of giving them the money for a whole ad campaign up front which could be seized as was apparently the case with the Discovery Channel and paradise (I think it was paradise but could be wrong - maybe it was party).