[Johny Poker]

[ QUOTE ]
I also took issue with your claim that U.S. courts could successfully exercise long-arm jurisdiction against a foreign corporation, particularly when the EULA has a choice of forum provision in it. Again, instead of addressing that issue (i.e. backing up your assertion that U.S. courts provided a meaningful remedy), you redefined the issue by suggesting other ways people could go after FTP, such as complaining to a foreign gaming commission.

While foreign commissions may provide a remedy, that begs the question of whether U.S. courts can do so. An intriguing idea, worthy of discussion, but not responsive to specific questions I posed.

I'm on your side - I'd love to have domestic judicial remedies against foreign poker sites, hence I think that regulation may be the only practical solution. But if you claim courts can already do it, I think that you should be prepared to substantiate your arguments w/o requesting a retainer.

Cheers, Carl.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amateur lawyers, come on. Sue them in a California court. That choice of forum provision is unenforceable. Sillysal lives in California. California law includes the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which makes unlawful unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services. It further includes:
1751. Any waiver by a consumer of the provisions of this title is contrary to public policy and shall be unenforceable and void.
and makes unlawful:

(19) Inserting an unconscionable provision in the contract.

Hmm, think any provisions in FT's ELUA are unconscionable? How about all FT decisions shall be final?

This has been applied by the California Court of Appeals to render unenforceable a choice of forum clause and choice of law clause in an AOL contract. The court stated:

"Certainly, the CLRA provides remedial protections at least as important as those under the Corporate Securities Law of 1968. Therefore, by parity of reasoning, enforcement of AOL's forum selection clause, which is also accompanied by a choice of law provision favoring Virginia, would necessitate a waiver of the statutory remedies of the CLRA, in violation of that law's anti-waiver provision (Civ. Code, 1751) and California public policy. For this reason alone, we affirm the trial court's ruling."

So, if this foreign jurisdiction has no consumer protection statute offering the protections of the CLRA (which I don't know but find EXTREMELY unlikely), then the provisions are very likely to be unenforceable. And for those who think long arm jurisdiction can't apply, tell that to Bodog, they have something like a $400 million judgment against them by I believe a Nevada court, they tried not showing up, got default judgment, tried to argue they were not served, lost on that too.