Betcha.com arrest/legal issues

[CPOSteve]

Bluff This,

Not an attorney, but am a wine drinker so I followed this closely. Your paragraph at the end is correct. The ruling is specific to states that allow in-state wineries to ship directly to customers but denied out-of-state wineries the same accomodation. Therefore, in most states you still cannot buy wine off the internet.

Analogously, if I lived in a state that allowed poker rooms, let's say California, and I set up an internet poker site then it could be argued that people who lived in another state that allowed poker rooms (Washington for example) should be able to play. Those of us in states that do not allow poker rooms (Maryland) wouldn't be able to make that argument.

Steve

[Skallagrim]

Steve got it pretty much correct, the basic principle is that a state cannot forbid an out of state company to offer services that would be allowed by an in-state company, unless Congress has specifically exempted the service from the Constitution's Commerce Clause (which they did with Insurance, for example).

So if a state law says NO INTERNET BETTING, then every company is illegal, no constitutional problem. If a state (like Nevada, currently) says NO INTERNET BETTING except at sites licensed in our state, BIG constitutional problem.

And with respect to poker, the question is even more complex because it is an open issue whether most state gambling laws actually apply to poker, and still again whether those laws apply to the internet (Louisiana and Washington amended their laws to make them specific to the internet).

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

I think that the attorney in the State of Washington is arguing that if a state permits any gambling in state then it cannot, under the commerce clause, ban internet gambling.
Since Washington permits Indian casinos, he is arguing that their internet gambling ban violates the commerce clause and the WTO, but that is a separate argument.

[oldbookguy]

Has yourself or anyone else read the Louis. Stat?
Link:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78701

Of interest Sections E and I:
E: E. Whoever designs, develops, manages, supervises, maintains, provides, or produces any computer services, computer system, computer network, computer software, or any server providing a Home Page, Web Site, or any other product accessing the Internet, World Wide Web, or any part thereof offering to any client for the primary purpose of the conducting as a business of any game, contest, lottery, or contrivance whereby a person risks the loss of anything of value in order to realize a profit shall be fined not more than twenty thousand dollars, or imprisoned with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both.

I.: I. The providing of Internet or other on-line access, transmission, routing, storage, or other communication related services, or Web Site design, development, storage, maintenance, billing, advertising, hypertext linking, transaction processing, or other site related services, by telephone companies, Internet Service Providers, software developers, licensors, or other such parties providing such services to customers in the normal course of their business, shall not be considered gambling by computer even though the activities of such customers using such services to conduct a prohibited game, contest, lottery, or contrivance may constitute gambling by computer for the purposes of this Section. The provisions of this Subsection shall not exempt from criminal prosecution any telephone company, Internet Service Provider, software developer, licensor, or other such party if its primary purpose in providing such service is to conduct gambling as a business.

Under the exclusions would one need only have the gambling as a secondary business?

Is it me, or does Sec I contradict most / all of Sec. E or at the least can be argued that way?

obg

[Legislurker]

That a state can make and enforce such a broad law strikes me as wrong. It does appear to give a prosecutor or a court too much leeway to determine what is the nature of a business or business transaction. Wouldn't that law criminalize a Lake Charles casino if it had a webpage to encourage business?

[oldbookguy]

More importantly, it can be easily argued the statue actually legalizes Internet gaming.

Say I have a website, it is a legitimate business doing very well. Since that would be my PRIMARY business, the secondary business could be Internet poker and as secondary a correct reading would be it is exempt.

Lawyers please?


obg

[CPOSteve]

OBG,

Again, not a lawyer, but it appears that Section I is meant to exempt an ISP assuming that that ISP does not exist primarily to provide access to internet gambling. In other words, Verizon isn't in violation of the statute if somebody uses their service (or router or whatever) to operate an internet gaming site. Running such a site, however, is clearly prohibited.

Again, just a layman's opinion, but that's how it reads to me.

Steve

[ktulu22]

Anarchy looms

[oldbookguy]

Lets focus on the precise wording in both, each states PRIMARY business.

Since, say, AOL who provides access and all those things, then could they not offer in this state, as a Secondary Business, gaming. Afterall, they derive income from many sources and gaming would be but one facet and not the primaty source.

That is the point I am making.

I think a company who is not intimidated could successfully argue this point and may win on an appeal.

Even if a business was a primary provider, would they then not have a case of unequal treatment as well provided the previous could be proved?

obg

[Grasshopp3r]

Your inference is very interesting. I would like to see Louisiana, which is possibly the most corrupt state in the Union, go up against the Feds.