Useful legal analogy re Internet versus other "legal" gambling - Page 4

MiltonFriedman · #31 08-10-2007, 02:27 PM

No need for a class action, they seek only injunctive releief, not damages.

JPFisher55 · #32 08-10-2007, 03:26 PM

But without any DOJ action against online poker players or regs does an online poker player, Doyle Brunson etc. or Party Poker have standing?

MiltonFriedman · #33 08-10-2007, 07:21 PM

Sure. Party does, about $7 billion worth of lost market value of injury. Party customers cannot play on Party, Party affilates lost income.

Even better, Doyle US based affiliates lost income and since have been screwed by FTP on their US players "transferred" over.

The key is that Online Poker is not banned, clearly, in certain States.

Legislurker · #34 08-10-2007, 08:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But without any DOJ action against online poker players or regs does an online poker player, Doyle Brunson etc. or Party Poker have standing?

[/ QUOTE ]

DOJ prosecution of the Neteller execs and the frozen money was and is harm. Epass is the alternative, and it charges higher fees. Use of capital was lost when the money was seized. What if a player lost his whole bankroll and had to resort to lesser income earning? Though perhaps Firepay may be a better source of injury as they left almost wholly over UIGEA, or that can be argued easier. Numerous injuries are there, and we could put a case together for each one in each distrcit.
Its just sad they can spend the $ on expensive lawyers instead of hiring 2-3 full time rabble rousers online to organize and focus us. A month, we could have 3-4 different lawsuits filed in every federal district. Im sure we could patch together a gratis or economy legal team to make sure the briefs arent laughed out of court. Even law students would work. Hell isn't Harvard Law School using online SNGs as collaborative teaching tools? This would be an awesome teaching project.

JPFisher55 · #35 08-10-2007, 11:11 PM

Problem is that Party Poker, Firepay and other online gambling business' exodus from US market was self-inflicted and not necessarily required by UIGEA.
Neteller was a Wire Act case, althought iMEGA's original petition seeks to injoin enforcement of Wire Act against online gambling. However, that request is not in its TRO.
However, some online gambling firm or affiliated individual maybe could show some negative affect of UIGEA. Maybe fear of prosecution is enough or maybe some subpoena by DOJ can confirm standing on some party. I don't know. I guess we will have to wait.
I agree that it would be nice if the PPA and some of its directors or major members would make an effort in the iMEGA case or start their own case.

MiltonFriedman · #36 08-11-2007, 12:33 AM

"Problem is that Party Poker, Firepay and other online gambling business' exodus from US market was self-inflicted and not necessarily required by UIGEA."

How many of their players remained in the US, how many of their affiliates lost business because of their flight ?

Let's assume that Party left because it feared staying would violate the UIGEA, (they said as much). That means the Act caused an injury in fact to Party's players and business partners in the US, not to mention US investors.

That Party ran off and was not prosecuted is not too relevant, DOJ has threatened prosecution.

JPFisher55 · #37 08-11-2007, 11:00 AM

So if the iMEGA has members so affected by the UIGEA, then it does have standing in its case? They should include individual members affected by fear of the UIGEA in their case as plaintiffs. Maybe they will do so if they encounter standing problems. Maybe their request for TRO/preliminary injunction is to test the waters on the standing issue.