Legal Landscape of Online Gaming Has Not Changed
Even though the Attorney General’s office has publicly taken the position that the 1961 Wire Act forbids online poker, in 10 years they have not put their money where their mouth is. The judiciary (that is, the interpreting body) has already held the position that the 1961 Wire Act does not speak to poker. It only applies to sports betting.
The case in point: In regards to Mastercard International, decided by District Court Judge Stanwood R. Duvall, Jr. Among other issues, Judge Duval was faced with the question of whether the Wire Act applied to online gambling. The posture of the case was interesting because many deadbeat gamblers attempted to avoid online gambling debts they had incurred by alleging that the money they owed their credit card companies amounted to illegal gambling debts in violation of the Wire Act. As a matter of fact, there were so many similar suits filed by so many gamblers who did not want to pay their losses that the lower court consolidated 33 such similar charges.
Judge Duval ruled that the Wire Act only prohibited wagering on sports events and he dismissed all 33 cases, noting that comparing the face of the Wire Act and the history surrounding its enactment with the recently proposed legislation, it becomes more certain that the Wire Act’s prohibition of gambling activities is restricted to the types of events enumerated in the statute, sporting events or contests. In other words, online poker was not within the reach of the Wire Act’s prohibition. The District Court of Appeal agreed with Duvall’s ruling that the 1961 Wire Act does not apply to online poker
Analysis excerpt From CardPlayer's Legal Counsel
Leave a comment