Re: Few seem to have noticed how the new law \"fixes\" the Wire Act
I agree with Stellarwind about the purpose of the law. The definition of a bet includes games subject to chance. But S5363 says "no person engaged in the business of betting or wagering...", and Pokerstars does not bet or wager with its customers. You have to admit that poker-only sites could at least have a case here.
FWIW I don't know why Party does not turn off their casino games to US players. Maybe they figure the "business of..." could easily be interpreted to include hosting a poker game even if you have no interest in the outcome. But True Poker CEO has come right out and made the argument that I am making here, with (I would hope) some legal counsel.
|