Is the PPA sticking its foot in its mouth?

[YoureToast]

Admittedly, I have followed the legislation impact discussions from a 60 foot level, but I have just done some research and I think the PPA may be barking up the wrong tree. Here's why:

I have read the UIGEA. I am lawyer. I have read some discussions (from TruePokerCEO and others) arguing that the UIGEA does not apply to poker sites (and therefore the payment systems that fund players' deposits/withdrawals) because poker sites are not in the "business of betting or wagering". From my perspective, this is a completely valid argument.

And if this argument holds water, wouldn't the PPA's request for an explicit poker "exemption" imply that poker is not currently exempted by the letter of the law? Would the PPA be better off seeking a "clarification" that the law doesn't apply to poker sites?

Just a thought.

[Jack Bando]

An explicit exemption is much better than an implicit one that comes from how one reads UIGEA. A clarification would be nice, but a written exemption is MUCH better.

[jaminbird]

Great point.

[JPFisher55]

Another problem is that the DOJ will not give such a clarification and neither the PPA or any other party can file litigation in court seeking such clarification because the DOJ has not taken any action against any online poker site or any one solely connected with one.

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
Another problem is that the DOJ will not give such a clarification and neither the PPA or any other party can file litigation in court seeking such clarification because the DOJ has not taken any action against any online poker site or any one solely connected with one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I was thinking about this as well. Its almost like we need a lawsuit to be filed to get this cleared up (without a specific exemption). I'm a corporate lawyer, but maybe a federal litigation attorney can comment on the ability to get a declaratory judgment, the idea being that a poker site or potential poker site could seek a declaration from a federal court that the act does not apply to entities that make betting between customers possible for a fee, specifically poker websites.

[Mondogarage]

Since the UIGEA hasn't actually been applied, and used as a basis for any charges, I don't see where any party has legal standing to file a DJ action at this time.

[crashjr]

Following the law of unintended consequences, if the poker sites are not in the business of betting or wagering, then who is? Someone must be, right? It has been a few months since I looked at the Wire Act and the UIGEA, but if I recall correctly, there is no definition of being in the "business of betting or wagering" in the UIGEA, although there is a definition in the Wire Act, and it required five or more people acting in concert. This struck me as an ill defined area of the UIGEA, and potentially an area for litigation.

[MiltonFriedman]

"Betting or wagering" as defined in the UIGE Act covers at least two types of businesses:

Sportsbooks who take bets as the House.


Online casinos who take bets as the House.

Both these fall within the definition in the UIGE Act AND are specifically mentioned elsewhere in that Act.

Poker sites neither bet or wager themselves, so they fall outside the coverage of Section 5363.

[MiltonFriedman]

The PPA is doing worse than sticking its foot into its mouth. It is blatantly IGNORING the legal process by which a statute can be clarified: i.e the writing of REGULATIONS under the Act.

This process IS available for public comment, that the PPA is not doing anything is ridiculous.

Hopefully, Senator Al will address this traditional means of getting a clarification of legislation .... You do not NEED a new bill, IF you can expressly escape coverage under the Regulations.

This is not a new approach, but one which the PPA deliberately ignores. Trust me, the "other side" knows how to "clarify" by regulation.

[MiltonFriedman]

Okay, then .... someone READ the Federal Register EVERY fuc*ing day until the Notice and Comment period for the Regulations is announced.... THEN announce it here.

Reliance on the PPA is foolish