Bonus whores.com bans certain US visitors

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay. Please site the legal precedent that makes you think you'd go to prison if I visit your website to read a review of a poker room.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could there possibly be another person in your area who does sign-up for a poker site instead of just read the info...or are you the only one in existence in that region??

[/ QUOTE ]

UIGE is pretty clear that having a link on your webpage doesn't expose you to criminal liability. The relevant section is 5365(c). You might have to remove a link if you're told to, but that doesn't have anything to do with the state of residence of people who happen to visit your site.

[JRussell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay. Please site the legal precedent that makes you think you'd go to prison if I visit your website to read a review of a poker room.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could there possibly be another person in your area who does sign-up for a poker site instead of just read the info...or are you the only one in existence in that region??

[/ QUOTE ]

UIGE is pretty clear that having a link on your webpage doesn't expose you to criminal liability. The relevant section is 5365(c). You might have to remove a link if you're told to, but that doesn't have anything to do with the state of residence of people who happen to visit your site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please post the part that so clearly states having an affiliate link is allowed.

So violating state law is OK and you can't possibly get in trouble?

[jrz1972]

1. I cited the section for you. Look it up. It begins on page 239 and explicitly says that the most trouble a site can get into is being told to remove a link or disable access to a gambling site. (5365c1A).

2. I live in SD. It's illegal for me to gamble here, but that legal liability involves me and the site I'm playing on, not third parties who just host links.

Again, if you can identify a piece of the bill that exposes BW to legal liability, feel free to cite it. I can't help but notice that nobody has been able to do so.

[gila]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I cited the section for you. Look it up. It begins on page 239 and explicitly says that the most trouble a site can get into is being told to remove a link or disable access to a gambling site. (5365c1A).

2. I live in SD. It's illegal for me to gamble here, but that legal liability involves me and the site I'm playing on, not third parties who just host links.

Again, if you can identify a piece of the bill that exposes BW to legal liability, feel free to cite it. I can't help but notice that nobody has been able to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would not it just be easier to click you are from another state?

[jrz1972]

Yeah, sure it would.

The main thing is that BW is stupidly over-reacting. I'm not aware of any other affiliate site that has started banning Americans from my state, and I'm not aware of any legal reason why they should. Jek tries to make it sound like this is somehow tied to UIGE, but nobody is able to find anything in that act that would support this position, mainly because there isn't anything there.

I'm not familiar with the legal situation in WA or most of the other "bad" states, so if there's something going on there, then hey great. But I *am* familiar with the law in SD, and I know there's nothing there that would put BW in any legal jeopardy.

I was content just to drop the whole thing until Jek insisted on coming back with a condescending response that just amounted to a bunch of hand-waving. If BW can't identify specifically what legislation they think might be causing them trouble, then please stop trying to make it sound like this is some kind of airtight legal decision that the rest of us mere mortals can't possibly understand. If they want to say "It's our company, and we'll run it the way we like, thank you very much," that's fine. Just don't try to tell me I haven't read UIGE and don't try to tell me I don't know the relevant law in my own state.

[JRussell]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I cited the section for you. Look it up. It begins on page 239 and explicitly says that the most trouble a site can get into is being told to remove a link or disable access to a gambling site. (5365c1A).

2. I live in SD. It's illegal for me to gamble here, but that legal liability involves me and the site I'm playing on, not third parties who just host links.

Again, if you can identify a piece of the bill that exposes BW to legal liability, feel free to cite it. I can't help but notice that nobody has been able to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Check out pages 222-223, section "B". It seems the act of attempting to block states with existing anti-gaming laws could prevent being defined as "unlawful Internet gambling".

2. There could also be some liability for the 3rd party who is aiding and abetting you and the site in conducting "unlawful Internet gambling".

I understand the section you referred to makes it sound ok to host links. However, there is a huge difference between hosting direct links and affiliate links. I'm not going to go into the reasons as to why, but I'm sure you can figure it out. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[pseudoego]

Any American affiliate websites who wish to discuss ways to salvage your site/avoid prosecution by relocating to another country are welcome to PM me.
Don't just walk away and turn out the lights. Let's talk.