PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points

[JPFisher55]

Skall, if you remember my proposed definition, it did exactly what you stated. It defined UIG as sportsbetting, except horse racing and fantasy sports, and any other online gambling that is expressly banned by state statute.
I doubt that the regulators will accept any definition because they want overblocking. I think that US banks will find that overblocking will cost them lots of customers, problems with correspondent foreign banks and money. They may just decide to ignore the regs because they are pretty toothless.
However, if WTO doesn't force the hand of the DEMS in Congress, the iMEGA loses and Kaplan loses, then litigation will result. I think that you have a year to prepare.

[2easy]

[ 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....

[/ QUOTE ]


I think of it as "precedented" federal case law, as opposed to established, because while there have been some favorable rulings at the Circuit Courts of Appeals level, (the 5th being the most prominent, if memory serves me correctly,) one circuit's position does not necessarily affect another's.

As the Supreme Court has not weighed in by ruling or granting cert on this matter, I feel that using "established" to describe the status is possibly being a bit optimistic.

Not trying to nitpick, just think that it serves us better to keep this in mind if we are going to "hang our hats" on this.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

In what camp are BluffThis and Mason on the UIGEA talking points? I've seen nothing from them on this issue.

As for the definition of "unlawful Internet gambling", it seems the murky legality is what has allowed foreign operators in the market while keeping out American ones, so I don't follow how this is somehow based on what's best for FT or PS.

If poker is excluded, we're in dreamland. How is that anyone's worst fear?!?!?

"the barrier to new market entry is tougher without a regulated level playing field"

I'm not following. You think MGM and Harrah's will need government help to enter the U.S. market?

[sevencard2003]

my biggest fear is that my bank will close my account, and blacklist me from being able to reopen another bank acct if it catches me from cashing an online check, or using my bank card to fund my poker acct, (claiming im using my bank acct illegally.)naturally the regulations would have to take effect first, but i wish someone would write the letter i need to send and PM it to me, to make sure something like this doesnt ever happen in the future.

and on a side note, i dont see how it will work for me to fund paytru acct with my bank debit card after these regulations go into effect, cause then paytru will have to worry about being prosecuted if they dont stop all business with sites.

[Halstad]

[ QUOTE ]
If poker is excluded...

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, does anyone think poker would be excluded?

[Skallagrim]

I am optimistic about poker ultimately getting recognized as legal - either Federally through a Wexler type bill, or in most states through a favorable court case.

I am pessimistic about the regulation writers ever giving us this gift.

I am also pessimistic about the banks giving us this gift.

But banks wont do what they dont have to - so regs that explicitly require only certain kinds of blocking policies which do not explicitly include poker is, IMHO, our best out.

My only difference with JP's comment is that JP wants the regulations to state that only certain things (not including poker) are "unlawful internet gambling." I want the regs to state that in blocking "UIG" transactions, bank policy must include only certain clear things. Thats a very subtle difference that only lawyers and bureaucrats will understand, but I think its a difference that these bureaucrats will respond to - banks remain free (theoretically) to block other transactions, and the possibility exists of amending the regulations in response to legislation or court decisions to include other things later. And no one has to do what no one really can do: explicitly define what is and is not "UIG" in each of the 50 states.

I believe if banks are told explicitly that their blocking policies only have to include the obvious, thats what most banks will do. If the regs continue to insist that banks must have policies to exclude everything that "is" UIG, they will exclude every conceivable thing.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

In what camp are BluffThis and Mason on the UIGEA talking points? I've seen nothing from them on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "decision" in my opinion questions if the PPA is fighting for all poker players rights or those with a select business model. Mason and BluffThis' board make up issue.

I am not convinced that because of this and a couple of other decisions since John came on board that there isn't at least a hint of a bias in the decision making of the board to take position that could be seen as favoring one segment of the poker world over that of others.

No the decision by John not to hire me yet, or to say that the decision to wait on filling the grassroots position is not a major part of this reaoning. Although I do question the commitment of the PPA to building a long term grassroots advocacy if they decide to not fill this position in the original time frame let alone in two or three times the original "interview" window.

Personally I've moved on to bigger and better things.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the definition of "unlawful Internet gambling", it seems the murky legality is what has allowed foreign operators in the market while keeping out American ones, so I don't follow how this is somehow based on what's best for FT or PS.


If poker is excluded, we're in dreamland. How is that anyone's worst fear?!?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because not one thing the PPA has said the Poker World would do to gain entry into the US market in the form or a regualtory mix will every come to pass.

Sure the market will open up and others who are in the wings or who let the market will try to re-enter, but who's position is the strongest? The major off-shore operators!

They "own" the current portion of the US market and to some degree will get to shape the future of on-line poker market for some time. Any inovation that they can live with in their business model they can implement quicker than anyone else and keep market share. Think M$ and Apple.

[ QUOTE ]
"the barrier to new market entry is tougher without a regulated level playing field"

I'm not following. You think MGM and Harrah's will need government help to enter the U.S. market?

[/ QUOTE ]

To some degree expect for direct tie ins to their live poker rooms and properties what can they offer than PS or FT can't match?

Any inovation US regualtion like even solid age verification will never come to be. There would nver be any Nevada type Federal Poker Commission to resolve disputes nor even bless a single RNG. Those are just two issues the PPA claims to be for we'll never see. There are others.

Then take the case of poker being included. Who has been harmed? PP? No they left the market. FT and PS go to court to "fight the good fight" the PPA raises the legal defense money from the membership or part of it, even with a complete donation drive failure; who won you the right to play on-line? Yep FT and PS.

Even if they loose, I'm sure they feel they will get an injunction to block and blocking during the court fight.

All in all, this is exactly the decision I would make if I owned a big piece of FT and or PS and could lead the PPA to get the membership to help my cause.

I hope I am wrong, but I haven't seen a single thing to show me the PPA wants anyting but a pre-UIGEA world or a US regulatory scheme that specifically does not exlude FT or PS from staying in the market. Which is exactly what PP and every other room feared when they left the US market about a year ago.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

Skall, I understand your position. Good idea, instead of defining the term UIG and expecting the banks to apply it, you just tell banks that the only transactions that you must worry about must involve sportsbetting, other than horse racing and fantasy league, and any other games expressly prohibited by state law.
However, I think that the regulators are even less likely to make this reg, then define the term UIG. They know if they tell banks that you only have to worry about x, then the banks will never block y. The problem is that the regulators really want x, y and z banned regardless of whether they are covered under the UIGEA.
So I proposed the same as a defintion of UIG for x only hoping to fool the regulators. I'll admit its a small hope.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
No the decision by John not to hire me yet ...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's awesome [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Grasshopp3r]

The UIGEA is going to be litigated, however the regs end up. That litigation is an opportunity and a risk, but it could potentially set some unintended precedents for e-commerce in general, which will gather more allies to our side.