Posts Tagged ‘internet-laws’

No Web Gaming or Online Poker in Democratic Platform

by , Sep 8, 2012 | 10:00 am

The 70-page Democratic platform contains 12 references to the word “Internet” and the plank, “Internet Freedom” under the heading, “Advancing Universal Values.”

How many of the Internet references pertain to legalizing Internet poker?


How many of the Internet references discuss the issue of Internet gaming?


A week after Republicans approved a platform that called for a “prohibition” on Internet gaming, the Democrats seemingly ignored the issue altogether.

Delegates to the Democratic Convention in Charlotte, N.C., gave their support to the party’s platform Tuesday in the convention’s opening session.


@PokerScar CEM podcast today about Internet gaming news

by , Nov 10, 2011 | 5:49 am

Pokerati contributor Scarlet Robinson talks Internet gaming news today at 12pm ET on the Casino Entertainment Magazine podcast.

Listen to internet radio with CEM Audio Edge on Blog Talk Radio

If you can’t listen to Scarlet live, you can catch her interview and plenty of other podcasts CEM at

Nevada Internet Gambling Hotlist

Several bills slated for hearing, two in NV Senate Judiciary this AM

by , Mar 11, 2011 | 9:00 am

Nevada has not just one, but three bills related to “interactive gaming” that now  have been referred for hearing in the state Senate Judiciary committee.  There are two bills related to internet gaming in Nevada being heard today 8AM PST in Senate Judiciary in Carson City labeled  SB103/SB218.  They are not specific to poker.

1) SB103 allows for Nevada Gaming Commission to establish licensing requirements/fees for “interactive gaming service providers” to act on behalf of licenses Nevada “establishments.”

2) SB218 authorizes the Nevada Gaming Control Board to setup and regulation of “hosting centers” as well as the authorization of “service providers” as amendments to NRS 463.750, with the assistance and advisement of the Nevada Gaming Commission

SB103 text at-> SB103 bill contents
SB218 text at-> SB218 bill contents

Live feed for the NV Senate Judiciary committee hearing for SB103/SB218 on 3/11/2011 in Carson City will be available here-> View (low speed) || View (high speed).

These two Nevada bills are *different bills* than the one read in the Assembly yesterday.  That bill was named AB258 that is specific to iPoker, allows for potential interstate gambling, and opened to doors for prior bad-actors-of-sorts.  This bill was referred, but not scheduled for hearing in the Senate Judiciary.

AB258 text at-> AB258 bill contents

Press links for AB258
Gambling Compliance article (by @CKrafcik) -> “Nevada Rejoins Internet Poker Race
Las Vegas Sun article (by @RalstonFlash) -> ‘As feds grapple with issue, Legislature will consider legalizing Internet gaming
ABC News article (by Michelle Rindels, AP, @oskargarcia contributes) ->‘Nev. Bill Would Set Regulations for Internet Poker’

Thanks to Chris Krafcik (twitter: @CKrafcik) and Susan Rhodes (twitter: @sdrhodes) for assistance in research and analysis.

Follow me @scarlet_lv today for live-tweet of the feed from the Nevada State Legislature.

Christie Press Conference Gives No Decision on New Jersey iGambling

by , Mar 3, 2011 | 11:20 am

New Jersey Governor Christie did hold a press conference this morning, but it did not answer any questions regarding today’s decision on the fate of iGambling for New Jersey.

Press of Atlantic City reported here:

Gov. Chris Christie said at 11:30 a.m. today that he has not yet decided whether to sign or veto a bill creating an intrastate online gambling system.

Christie has just hours to decide whether to allow the system, which would be a first nationwide but which has faced questions about its legality within state and federal law.

Christie said he plans to decide the issue later today.

If he does not act by the end of the day, the bill becomes law.

The official live-feed site for Governor Christie went into “password protected” mode at about 11AM EDT, leaving those of us geeky enough to have gotten to the presser early to remain in the open chat room staring at a blank feed, and everyone else who wanted to watch *out*.

PPA Chairman Alfonse D’Amato appeared on Fox Business at 12:15PM EDT to discuss the governor’s upcoming decision. When asked what he thought was on Christie’s mind were this afternoon. D’Amato said:

“I think the governor would like to pass it [S490], but there may be a constitutional prohibition.  He’s studying that right now.  And it may have to first go through the people for legislative approval.”

Whatever Christie might be thinking or “studying” today, he has only until midnight tonight to veto the bill before it is made law.

New Jersey Intrastate iGambling Decision Day

Governor Christie holds press conference

by , | 8:42 am

Governor Christie is expected to announce today if he will sign/veto/ignore S490 which, if made law, “permits Internet wagering at Atlantic City casinos under certain circumstances.”

He is holding press conference shortly at 11am EDT, where he is expected to comment on his decision.

A live stream of Christie’s press conference can be watched-> here.

Vegas Comes to the Channel Islands

Alderney & Nevada Regulators Sign Memorandum of Understanding

by , Jan 27, 2011 | 11:39 am

I was all set this morning to write a blog entry on the continuing dispute in Kennedy & Omotoy v. Full Tilt Poker et al. (The original post by Dan Michalski was back in 2009.) This litigation is fascinating; it has bounced from state court to federal court and back to state court in California, and an update would be fun. But something else caught my eye: a public statement from the Alderney Gambling Control Commission stating that Alderney has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Nevada Gaming Control Board. The statement is here.

As just about everyone familiar with Internet gambling is aware, Alderney is one of the handful of jurisdictions worldwide that actually licenses online interactive gaming, including poker. (Other such jurisdictions include Gibraltar, Malta, the Isle of Man, Antigua, and Kahnawake.) Probably the most prominent poker website operating under Alderney’s regulation is Obviously Tilt is a US-facing site, which is interesting fact number 1. Interesting fact number 2 is that Alderney only regulates i-gaming. This makes sense. The place is a speck of an island off the north-western coast of France with a population of 2,400; it doesn’t have any bricks and mortar casinos.

The agreement between Nevada and Alderney “paves the way for enhanced cooperation in the field of gaming regulation.” Not too helpfully, the public statement specifies that this co-operation will extend to “the areas of sharing of information, expertise, knowledge and skills as well as exchange visits and training.” I hope for the sake of the Alderney parties that the “exchange visits” are mostly one-way and in Vegas, especially at this time of year.

So the Internet gaming regulator of a US-facing poker site (that, along with all currently US-facing poker sites) has a memorandum of understanding prescribing areas of co-operation with Nevada. (Don’t parse that previous sentence too closely; Nevada may still have a problem with i-gaming operators that turned off US players back in 2006 when the UIGEA was passed and that aren’t currently US-facing.) And since Alderney only regulates Internet gaming, the co-operation must be at least partly with a view to Nevada understanding and learning more about Internet gaming. Apparently Nevada doesn’t have a problem with recognizing the authority of Alderney to regulate Internet gaming; it only has a problem with the behaviour (sanctioned by Alderney) of some of their licensees. These kinds of agreements between gaming regulators aren’t particularly new. The Kahnwake Gaming Commission has struck agreements with Alderney and with Antigua that would appear to go much further than this accord between Alderney-Nevada. But it’s still interesting that Nevada is reaching out to engage with current online regulators – even online regulators that accept US-facing licensees.

What this means for Internet poker in the US is anyone’s guess, but it seems clear that Nevada is heading for regulation at some point. Nevada regulators were going to be at the forefront of the licensing structure contemplated by the Reid Bill draft that was floating around last month. The Nevada Gaming Commission was going to be one of the leading Qualified Bodies under the bill on a number of measures. It’s safe to say that Nevada will have a leading role if poker regulation happens at the federal level in the next couple of years; federal action may actually be more likely if more and more states start regulating intrastate gaming, including poker. At an intrastate level, Nevada’s signals have been mixed at best. This kind of agreement with Alderney, however, may indicate that Nevada could be thinking about going its own way absent federal interactive gaming oversight.

Internet poker regulation in the US may be one (very small) step closer.

Las Vegas Sun Quotes Reid: “Things have never been better”

Article touts successful bills; fails to mention online poker

by , Dec 24, 2010 | 11:05 am

The Las Vegas Sun has been following the antics actions of their favorite senator quite closely this December, particularly with respect to online poker legislation (see timeline below.)

But today, just a little more than a day after the second lameduck session of 111th Congress ended, the Sun chose to say nothing at all about #reidbill in this story published at 2am entitled “For Harry Reid, it’s been the best of times, worst of times.”


LV Sun Articles: Timeline

NOTE: Dec 2nd -> #reidbill announced to public via Wall Street Journal article

Dec 3rd -> “Harry Reid pushes bill to allow for online gambling”
Dec 7th -> “Harry Reid rushes effort to legalize Internet poker”
Dec 9th a.k.a. zombie-bill-day -> Is it dead? -or- Is it alive?
Dec 10th -> “Casino trade group supports Internet poker bill”
Dec 15th -> “Letter: Legalizing online poker of no help to average Nevadans”
Dec 15th -> “Reid, Republicans in spat over Christmas session
Dec 17th -> “All bets off: Online poker bill dealt possible death blow”
Dec 19th -> “Senate passes food safety bill, again – Sunday, Dec. 19″
Dec 22nd -> “9/11 health care bill still on Reid’s agenda

NOTE: Dec 22 -> 2nd session of lame duck adjourned “sine die” (adjourned for an indefinite period)



Update: Internet Gambling Domain Seizure Case in Kentucky

by , Dec 21, 2010 | 7:10 am

The latest order in Kentucky v 141 Internet Domain Names has just come down from the Franklin Circuit Court. Remember that this case goes back to 2008 when the Commonwealth of Kentucky tried to seize certain domain names (including and on an ex parte basis because the domain names were said to be operating in breach of Kentucky law.

In an attempt to kick-start this litigation – which has been bogged down in procedural wranglings and appeals – Kentucky had proposed to divide the in rem defendants into smaller, more manageable groups. Each group would then be addressed by the court using a case management system. The idea was that the owner of the domain name in each group would be given notice and a chance to appear, prove his/her/its ownership of the domain name, and contest the seizure. The first group of domain names was limited to,,,, and The Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) had opposed Kentucky’s motion and also sought to intervene in the case.

iMEGA has made a case for what’s called associational standing. Associational standing, very generally, allows an organization or group to intervene in a judicial proceeding on behalf of its members. There are a number of tests that need to be met in order to obtain associational standing. While iMEGA would normally have associational standing, the Franklin Circuit Court has now held that it is unclear whether associational representation can extend to an in rem proceeding in Kentucky; this issue is novel and the court needs to consider it further. Accordingly, the next move is that the Court will keep the case management order sought by Kentucky on hold until the associational standing issue can be determined. This is a clear victory for the defendants in this matter, as Kentucky wanted to simply plough ahead with a case management structure and without vetting the associational standing issue.

The parties have 30 days to submit briefs on this issue, after which Kentucky or iMEGA can bring the matter on for an oral hearing.

Stay tuned for more developments in this fascinating state-level case.

Possible iPoker Vehicle Approved by House, awaits Senate

#reidbill: Omnibus or bust?

by , Dec 13, 2010 | 8:04 am

For a good portion of last week, it seemed likely that the #reidbill was going to be attached to the tax cut bill making it’s way through Congress. On Friday morning, Politico reported that the tax cut bill had no such pokery verbage, but that attachment to that piece of legislation was “still possible” if Reid made “additional modifications” before the tax bill is voted on sometime in the coming days.

Other outs? The House approved a mammoth $1.1 trillion dollar continuing resolution (CR) bill H.R.3028 just last Thursday. The Hill discussed how the CR could be amended into an omnibus:

A CR is needed because Congress failed to pass any of the 12 regular appropriations bills for 2011, in addition to failing to pass a budget resolution at all for the first time since 1974.

Democrats plan to amend the CR in the Senate into an omnibus appropriations bill that has been crafted by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).

That Senate bill, which is also being worked on by minority staff in an effort to garner enough Republican votes to overcome a filibuster, would provide about $19 billion more in funding than the House CR and would contain congressional earmarks.

The Washington Post featured the internet poker legislation on the front-page of their website on Saturday, and had this to say about the possibility that #reidbill might be included, in the omnibus -or- in other legislation:

Reid initially toyed with adding the proposal to the tax-cut compromise between Republicans and President Obama but decided against it amid concerns that it would further complicate that bill’s chances for getting passed, according to lobbyists and aides. The measure could be added to an omnibus spending bill or other must-pass legislation in coming days.

ABC News also talked about the timeframe for passing the CR in a report on Saturday:

For all the talk about taxes lately, the Senate’s only must-do issue in the lame-duck session is extending government funding into next year, a fight that appears set to take place late next week. Senators are up against a clear deadline: the latest continuing resolution to keep the government running ends at 12:01am on Sunday Dec. 19th.


The Senate is set to have its first procedural vote on the tax bill next Monday, so it is likely that the chamber will not take up the omnibus until Wednesday at the earliest. That would mean that both the Senate and the House would have to pass it by the end of Saturday if lawmakers are to avert a government shutdown.

The urgency of this continued resolution to the operation of our government is clear.  Whether the fate of internet poker legislation rests with the same piece of legislation is yet to be seen.

AGA Speaketh: Fahrenkopf Says #reidbill = Good

by , Dec 10, 2010 | 4:09 pm

AGA just released a statement in support of the “Prohibition of Internet Gambling, Internet Poker Regulation and Strengthening UIGEA Act of 2010”, or, as I like to call it -> the PIG-IPRSUA. Catchy, right?

Surprising? No. Except the time it took for them to come forth with an official press release.

Frank Fahrenkopf, AGA chieftain, had the following to say:

“This is tough law-and-order legislation that puts in place a solid regulatory framework and legal oversight that will prevent illegal activity and protect the estimated 15 million Americans who already are playing poker online. Ours is a unique industry in that it wants tough regulatory control and strict law enforcement oversight, which ensures the integrity of our business and protects consumers. Current online gambling laws do not provide these safeguards, leaving players and the system open to fraud, cheating and other illegal acts.”

“Without this legislation, players will remain unprotected, law enforcement oversight will remain murky, illegal offshore operators will continue to reap billions from U.S. bettors, and the U.S. will continue to lose out on the significant tax revenues and thousands of jobs that could be generated by this already popular activity. The millions of Internet poker players need and deserve the protections of a strong regulatory structure and law enforcement oversight that this legislation would provide.”

Nothing new here.  Yes, consumer protection is a positive.  But what about this (emphasis added)?

The proposed legislation ensures that Federal and State authorities will now have the ability to control what has, until now, been unfettered access to all forms of Internet gambling.

My takeaway?  AGA is letting *everyone* know they are behind this legislative horse.  Gotta wonder what Fahrenkopf and crew think about Jersey, California, and the District of Columbia‘s push to legalize iGambling on their own.

Tax Cut Bill (as-of-last-night) Does Not Contain “Poker Language”

Attachment still possible; omnibus continuing resolution other option

by , | 2:19 pm

In the exhausting hemming-and-hawing going in both the mainstream and iPoker media, there is only one topic on a bigger heater than when is this effing thing going be over if the #reidbill hand is still live.

Is the “Reid Online Poker” gonna be attached to the tax cut bill, or what?

Politico reported this morning that when “74-page tax cut bill was officially introduced late Thursday, it did not include the poker language.”  But without owning the Las Vegas Sun’s political Ouija board, all I can say is that there is still a chance this could happen.

Reid could still insert the poker legalization into the tax cut bill if additional modifications are made before a final vote is cast sometime next week. Or he could slip the plan into a mammoth $1 trillion omnibus spending bill that has yet to be unveiled but is necessary to keep the government funded through September. Any option is certain to generate backlash from the GOP.

Reid issued a statement to his home state press corps Thursday evening confirming that he is crafting legislation to legalize online poker, framing the effort as a common-sense measure to regulate and tax gambling occurring through offshore companies.

“The legislation I am working on would get our collective heads out of the sand and create a strict regulatory environment to protect U.S. consumers, prevent underage gambling and respect the decisions of states that don’t allow gambling,” he said.

He asserted his bill would ensure “the revenue and jobs from this multibillion-dollar industry will stay where it belongs — here in America.”

Seems like the tax-cut bill and the bazillion dollar CR (continuing resolution) omnibus are still both viable conduits for the #reidbill, but *no one* can truly say at this point how-when-or-if the internet poker legislation will pass.

So take a deep breath and pull up a comfortable chair at the virtual poli-rail, because to quote one fatigued tweeter named @MSauce_-> “The #ReidBill sweat is so swingy.”

Reid Bill Legal Analysis: Can ‘Bad Actors’ be Licensed? If So, How?

by , Dec 8, 2010 | 12:36 pm

There has been some confusion on at least one major topic contained within the currently-circulating Reid bill (via @Kevmath), and that is surrounding the licensing of ‘bad actors’ (see below on this), which is my shorthand for entities operating US-facing Internet poker sites.

Questions of Interest:

1. Can a ‘bad actor’ who operated knowing it was serving US customers be licensed under the Reid bill?

2. Do the ‘bad actors’ specified in the bill include owners of Internet gambling facilities and not just Internet poker facilities?

3. If they can be licensed, will ‘bad actors’ be able to participate in asset sales (not just share sales)?

4. Does it matter if a US-facing site is currently transacting business with US residents or only did so historically?

In trying to answer these questions, and to keep things relatively simple, I am going to analyze the example of a US casino, otherwise licensable, that wants to purchase a corporation that is today accepting US bets or wagers with full knowledge of that fact.



#reidbill: A Haiku

by , Dec 6, 2010 | 11:07 pm

Tax cut extended
2+2 thread upended
#reidbill appended

Detailed Legal Analysis of Reid Internet Poker Bill

Draft revealed: “The Prohibition of Internet Gambling, Internet Poker Regulation and UIGEA Enforcement Act”

by , Dec 3, 2010 | 10:21 pm

Stu Hoegner, our resident international gaming attorney here at Pokerati – a.k.a. @GamingCounsel as he is well-followed on Twitter – has located a copy of a document that has been widely requested by our readers in the past 24 hours.

Check it out -> Las Vegas Review Journal has placed the following draft copy of the Reid Internet Poker Bill on the web.

Hold on to your legal hats … here’s Stu’s detailed analysis of this draft copy of Reid’s bill.


This post is based on one version of the Reid bill that is circulating. There may be others.

The top-line provisions of the Prohibition of Internet Gambling, Internet Poker Regulation and UIGEA Enforcement Act (the “Bill”) are as follows. This is not an exhaustive analysis – it’s too soon for that and the participation of many others in that kind of exercise is required (and salutary).

1. Findings

The Bill acknowledges that Internet gambling has continued to flourish since adoption of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and that the UIGEA has been unable to stop operators from offering sports wagering and other forms of gambling. The Bill goes on to affirm the longstanding federal policy against interstate gaming on professional, scholastic, or amateur sporting events.

In the Bill, Congress finds that poker enjoys a long history and cultural tradition in the US. The Bill states that in the long run the outcome of poker is influenced by the skill of the participants and it distinguishes house-banked games (where wagers are made against a casino) from poker (where wagers are made between and among the participants).

The Findings section of the Bill clearly sets the stage for the licensing of Internet poker only, and the Bill goes on to do just that.

Congress also finds that a new federal Internet poker market “should be regulated by entities that have an established track record of providing a well regulated gaming market to American consumers” and “should be limited to service should be limited, at least initially, to service providers that have an established track record of complying with a strict regulatory environment, have an established track record of providing fair games to consumers, and have significant goodwill and assets at stake, in addition to their Internet poker assets, to ensure they will comply strictly with the new regulatory regime.”

Notwithstanding that the World Trade Organization decisions in the US-Antigua and Barbuda dispute are “erroneous,” the Bill asserts that the US should “conclude” the dispute in an orderly and expeditious fashion that respects World Trade Organization rules and the federal and State prerogative to restrict and control wagering on sporting events and games of chance.

2. Definitions

Some of the more important definitions in the Bill are set out below.

“Bet or wager” as used in the Bill has the same definition as under 31 U.S.C. §5362(1) (i.e., UIGEA) but excludes bets or wagers under the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978, bets or wagers that are intratribal transactions, and bets or wagers that are a chance to win a lottery or other game authorized by a state or a tribe that is an intrastate transaction as described under UIGEA.

We have a definition of poker in the Bill. “Poker” means any of several card games in which success over the long run is influenced by the skill of the player and

(A) that is commonly referred to as poker;

(B) that is played by 2 or more people who bet or wager against each other on cards dealt to them out of a common deck of cards

i. including games using community cards that any player may use to make his or her hand, and

ii. including games using electronic devices that simulate a deck of cards;

(C) in which players compete against each other and not against the person operating the game;

(D) in which bets or wagers of one player are often designed to affect the decision of another player in the game; and

(E) in which the person operating the game may assess a commission fee or any other type of fee.

Poker also includes poker tournaments in which players pay a fee to play against each other, including tournaments where the licensee guarantees a minimum tournament pot.

As a threshold matter, poker must be a card game where success over the long run is influenced by skill. This is an interesting definition that will generate a lot of discussion. How long is the long run and how many hands does it contain? How much skill need be involved if the skill of the player must merely “influence” success? Provided any particular iteration of poker that’s out there (and there are many) meet these various tests, it should qualify.

An “Internet poker facility” means an “Internet gaming facility” (also defined) that provides bets or wagers only with respect to a game, hand, tournament, or other contest of poker. Only persons operating Internet poker facilities under a license issued by a Qualified Body (see below) may be licensees under the Bill.

A “Qualified Body” means a State or tribal regulatory body that has been qualified by the Secretary of Commerce as provided in of section 8202(c) of the Bill (including entities qualified as a matter of law under subsection (c)(1)). This part of the Bill automatically qualifies state and tribal agencies as bodies qualified to grant licences that, among other things: currently regulate casino gaming and have done so for 5 years preceding the date of enactment of the Bill; have regulated casino gaming facilities involving gross gaming revenue of at least 5% of the total US casino gaming revenue for at least 3 out of the last 5 years preceding enactment of the Bill; are in states or on Indian lands that are opted in under section 8204 of the Bill (see below). Those not automatically qualified under section 8202(c)(1) can apply to the Secretary of Commerce for designation as a Qualified Body.

Finally, a “Significant Vendor” means an individual or entity that, with respect to a licensee or applicant under the Bill:

(A) knowingly manages, administers, or controls bets or wagers that are initiated, received, or otherwise made within the United States;

(B) knowingly manages, administers, or controls the games with which such bets or wagers are associated;

(C) develops, maintains, operates, the software, other system programs or hardware on which the games or the bets or wagers are managed, administered or controlled;

(D) provides the trademarks, trade names, service marks, or similar intellectual property under which the licensee identifies its Internet Poker Facility to its customers in the United States;

(E) provides any products, services, or assets and is paid a percentage of gaming revenue by the licensee in order to do so; or,

(F) with respect to an applicant, proposes to provide any of the activities, services or items identified in (A)-(E), above.


Reid Online Gambling Bill: Inside The Draft

UIGEA strengthened; foreign sites wanting US license must obey

by , | 3:47 pm

As word that Harry Reid was authoring his own poker/casino-friendly bill repealing UIGEA filtered through the press today, people in the poli-poker world have been itching for a look at the draft filtering around Capitol Hill.

Fortunately, the global gaming consultants at Gambling Compliance have not only had eyes on this constantly-changing document, they also have had ears on Capitol Hill itself.  The analysis of the Reid Online Gambling Bill by folks in-the-know is available on their website for paying subscribers.  Although a portion of the document summarizes stuff we learned from the Wall Street Journal article posted late yesterday, there is is a huge amount of new (and compelling) info from what we had available last night.  Probably the biggest surprise is a strengthening of the UIGEA mentioned the text of the leaked Reid bill, and not the complete repeal per early reports.

Top Ten Facts From Inside The Draft ->

1.  The “entities controlled by” casinos, race tracks, and slot makers would be “immediately eligible” to get licenses for online poker.  How soon is not clear.

2. The bill prohibits new US licensees initially from “pooling any player liquidity from any international poker networks.”  I’m not exactly sure what this means, but my take is that US licensees would not be able to pull in bankrolls from Full Tilt, Poker Stars, UB, or any foreign poker gambling site for some period of time.

3. US Department of Commerce would oversee regulation, but “the most well established” state and tribal authorties would gain power over “licensing, investigatory, and enforcement” issues.

4. US online poker operators would need to pay a ostentatious rake licensing fee on monthly customer deposits, “possibly as high as 20 percent.” Revenue to be split between feds, state that the poker player lives in, and the state the company operates from.

5. Spoiler! Bill wants “beef up enforcement” of UIGEA by requiring Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to submit a blacklist of “unlicensed Internet gaming enterprises” to the US Secretary of the Treasury.  Wasn’t this supposed to be an anti-UIGEA bill?

6. All current sites accepting bets from US resident better stop doing it upon bill passage if they ever “wished to participate in a legal US market.”

7.  In the draft version Gambling Compliance saw, the first US online poker operators could not get their licenses for at least 15 months.  After the 15 month period, there would be a 2 yr period where the US Department of Commerce could decide if they even wanted to open up the market to include those beyond established US gaming entities.

8. Collegiate scholarly types think there is some *serious* preferential treatment in this draft given to the largest state agencies such as Nevada and New Jersey, giving them automatic qualification and a jump on prospectives.

9. Tribals are pretty unhappy with the language of the draft, touting an analysis around around DC which states the bill is “rigged to ensure that Nevada immediately becomes the licensing hub, and that tribal gaming authorities will never be able to qualify.”

10. Clarification is given that both online betting for horse races, and intrastate internet sales of lottery tickets do not violate the 1961 Wire Act.

Keep in mind this bill is a rapidly “moving target”, peeps.  The lame duck session is set to continue at least through the end of next week; final draft of the Reid bill seems unlikely until the end of Congressional session.

In the words of John Pappas, Executive Director of the PPA, “Anyone who says he knows what the bill will be doesn’t know anything.”