[Zetack]

[ 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?