PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points

[Todd Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
I am in the minority on the definition issue. If the regulators did define online poker to be UIG, then an Action for Declaratory Judgment would be easier to bring because standing and ripeness issues would not exist. In addition, this definition is contrary to established federal case law.
The vague definition may cause banks to overblock and make such litigation more difficult to bring in federal court.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the standing and ripeness issues to which you refer? Why is, "I play poker for a living, I tried to transfer money to an online poker site, it was blocked" not sufficient to satisfy standing and ripeness? Any online site as a plaintiff could satisfy them now as well.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put me in the Mason and Bluffthis camp until I get a decent reason to follow this lead.

All this seems to do is protect off-shore interests and any future talks on legislation or legal court fights.

This is a bigger loose than letting the regulations go unchallenged in total. If the regualtors specifically include poker then even the WTO crap goes away as no one has a beef and even the off-shores have their opportunity for a new payment method that is even more expensive to utilize pops up or on-line poker dies. If poker is excluded then FT and PS reap the benifits of being existing players in the US market and everyone is playing catch up.

Here Mason and Bluffthis's worst fears come to pass.

Either way we pay more to an e-pisspoorservice in a tax of our poker money even less regualted under the table further off shore, or the barrier to new market entry is tougher without a regulated level playing field.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

If a bank mistakenly blocks an online poker transaction, who can you sue in federal court. The regs specifically protect the bank from liability. If you file an Action for Declaratory Judgment against the AG etc., they may claim that no case in controversy exists because you are not under threat of prosecution.
But if a regulation making online poker a UIG, then you at least have a case in controversy. I am not stating that the above problem cannot be solved, but I would rather not have it if litigation is necessary.
Anyway I previously posted a comment with a proposed definition of UIG which I submitted. I do not mention poker in the definition or my suggested examples. I posted it in a previous thread about comments to the regs. If anyone wants I can repost it.
I doubt that it will matter. I don't think that the Agencies drafting the proposed regs will change them.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
If a bank mistakenly blocks an online poker transaction, who can you sue in federal court. The regs specifically protect the bank from liability. If you file an Action for Declaratory Judgment against the AG etc., they may claim that no case in controversy exists because you are not under threat of prosecution.
But if a regulation making online poker a UIG, then you at least have a case in controversy. I am not stating that the above problem cannot be solved, but I would rather not have it if litigation is necessary.
Anyway I previously posted a comment with a proposed definition of UIG which I submitted. I do not mention poker in the definition or my suggested examples. I posted it in a previous thread about comments to the regs. If anyone wants I can repost it.
I doubt that it will matter. I don't think that the Agencies drafting the proposed regs will change them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im with JP. I guess Im agitating for all out war. Define whats illegal gambling, and hope to God Pat Robertson miseducated the bastard writing the regs. The regulations are not a solution or really an end. They HAVE the tools/laws to indict and waterboard a guilty plea from whomever is stupid enough to enter the US. They aren't coming after any of us, unless its the IRS. Lobby for weak regs if you want, but Id rather see a fight with a defined enemy.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that the Agencies drafting the proposed regs will change them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should they. Having been on the inside of one of these things I can tell you that usually they have looked at most of the angles and have lined up support from most of the players.

This is a $365 Billion dollar game or more. This isn't the USDA writing a regualtion to see where the cut is on farm size or crops planted to see who gets part of the latest Congressional give away program.

If the Banks don't have a problem with this we learn live with it and push for a Wexler type bill.

We either make the banks uneasy or figure out how to limit the damage or how much more we are going to have to pay in fees to deposit in the mean time.

Good luck with cashing a withdraw check, without having to go offshore to spend it........


D$D

[omgwtf]

Dear Regulators:

It has come to our attention that UIGEA has some flaws that might allow poker sites to operate and continue to accept US players. Additionally, the proposed regulations are ambiguous as to whether transactions to and from poker sites are prohibited.

Please see the enclosed recommendations, where we have conveniently outlined how to make absolutely certain that online poker is completely and unambiguously prohibited, and that US financial institutions will block all transactions between US players and online poker sites.

Sincerely,

The Poker Players Alliance

[ubercuber]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me to my kids: "Maybe."
Kids: "Does that mean yes?"
Me: "It means I don't know yet."
Kids: "But it doesn't mean no right?"
Me: "I can give you an answer right now, but you might not like it..."
Kids: "Maybe works."

[omgwtf]

[ QUOTE ]
Me to my kids: "Maybe."
Kids: "Does that mean yes?"
Me: "It means I don't know yet."
Kids: "But it doesn't mean no right?"
Me: "I can give you an answer right now, but you might not like it..."
Kids: "Maybe works."

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA: "But we have to know RIGHT NOW!"
Regulators: "Then the answer is NO, and that's final."

It's nothing short of insanity to think that the regulators won't go for the broadest (safest) definition of which forms of online gambling are unlawful.

The PPA might just succeed in getting the rest of the poker sites cut off from the US. Good job, guys.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has now gone past 'terrible idea' and is well on its way to 'one of the worst ideas I've ever heard'.

[Skallagrim]

Was my post to long to get the point across? The folks who write these regs have realized what I have been saying all along: applying various state laws written mostly in the early 1900's which may or may not apply to poker, the internet, bridge, backgammon, and all the other gray things, is an intellectual and legal nightmare.

To placate the anti-gambling folks the current regs basically encourage banks to do what Frist and the DOJ could not achieve through legislation: ban transactions to all for-money games.

If we are going to stop this we have to get them to realize how much otherwise perfectlty legal US businesses will suffer. We must also emphasize that the banks who care about having such businesses as customers will be driven crazy trying to comply.

Hence the way out is not to force them to make the defintion they refuse to make, but to have the regs say explicitly that the required bank practices/policies ALSO DONT HAVE TO MAKE THAT DEFINITION. The regs should say that the banks need only have a policy to prevent transactions to sportsbooks (and maybe online casinos) unless they are banks in Louisianna, Illinois, Washington, and the few other states that have very specific laws regarding internet play - those banks have to comply with those laws too.

To require the banks to do anything else will either harm legal US businesses or require the banks to do some seriously costly work. Seriously costly work is - per the UIGEA statute - good grounds to not require it.

Skallagrim

PS - much as I, as an attorney, would look forward to litigation (and understand the opportunity - and danger - that litigation brings), I, as an online poker player, would much rather see regs that dont stop me from playing until a lawyer gets a court to say I can.