http://www.justice.gov/olc/2011/stat...es-opinion.pdf

This seemed NVG worthy.

Legislation thread

Nice. Chad Holloway at PokerNews digested this ruling here:
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2011/1...ents-11711.htm

While I can see why the PPA considers this a victory, does this have any direct and immediate consequences for online poker? For example, I wonder how many lawmakers had voted against the regulation/licensing of online poker on the grounds of the Wire Act.

One thing that concerns me is the fact some people have tried to push poker as a sport. If the wire act prohibits bets on sports or sporting contests, have those people shot us in the foot? I know the wire act has traditionally been used to prosecute the person taking the bets, but there is nothing to prevent them from using it against people making the bets.

I doubt there is any danger of poker being classed as a sport by our government. State laws clearly classify it as casino-type gambling, or in a few cases as a skill game. Even where mentioned in federal law (IGRA), it is a gambling game, not a sport.

But this a case of be careful what you wish for...

timing is pure gold lol. this is more of an "in your face" move than a real victory for poker, now that they've harassed half the us-friendly crowd out of business

there is hardly any danger of that. in the worst case if it happens there will be quite an outrage coming both from poker opponents and from proponents

I don't think this matters for tournaments even if poker would be declared a sport. Take golf and tennis tournaments for example, players put up money to enter the pool. This is identical to a poker tournament and is not considered gambling. It is what it takes to engage in the sport; it is part of the game itself. If someone takes Tiger vs the field, then it becomes gambling.

Cash games could be considered something else. Cash games are the same as tournaments in that you have to put money up to play, but that's about it. You can buyin for different amounts, leave when you want, and make real money bets on specific actions(which is something that is at least frowned on in most sports). None of those 3 thing resemble anything I can think of in sports.

If I had to say one way or another, I'd say a tournament is a sport and cash games are gambling.
-Skill in either notwithstanding

It doesn't really matter one way or another though. There could be a mess if one was seen differently, but poker(tournaments and cash games alike) is seen as gambling in this country, and I don't think that is changing any time soon.

I don't think it matters if poker is considered a sport. It still wouldn't be "sports betting." Pretty sure the DOJ means wagering on sporting events or contests, not playing a game yourself for money, even if the game is a sport.

This is how I read it, too. In fact, if poker was explicitly defined as a sport, the Wire Act would prohibit a WSOP fantasy league but not playing the actual game.

Well, it's certainly going to make any UIGEA prosecution a whole lot harder. UIGEA doesn't actually make any gambling illegal, only receiving funds for gambling that's already illegal. The presumption has been that it applies because online gaming was illegal under the Wire Act. This has to be good news for any sites that weren't laundering money.

There's still the maze of state laws to contend with. However, this might mean that states won't have to reconcile regulation of online poker (or casinos) with federal law, which would make the process a lot easier.

Still, the DOJ opinion doesn't hold the force of a court ruling, and could quite easily change tomorrow. (Or, more likely, when there's a new President.)

So, why doesn't Poker Stars (or any other site) start accepting US players?

UIGEA does not apply to them in US states where poker is not explicitly illegal.

Seriously, the answer to this question needs to be a sticky.

It does matter because of the Wire Act. Fortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals has already ruled that poker is not a "sporting event or contest" under the Wire Act and the Wire Act therefore does not apply to poker. See, In Re Mastercard Internet Gambling Litigation (Fifth Circuit, 2002).

Technically, dicta, but explicit nevertheless.

The Plaintiffs in that case had online casino losses, not poker. Incredibly, Plaintiffs' counsel did not have one named plaintiff who had lost money betting on sports online.

To give some background, DOJ was NOT a party to the cases. They were brought against Mastercard and other credit card processors by private parties seeking to escape charges related to online casinos.

In light of this from the DOJ, what is holding back a company like Party Poker from re-entering the US market? What is preventing a Vegas casino from starting their own site immediately?

I think what keeps PokerStars, PartyPoker and a potentially revived FTP out of the US market is agreements they've already made with the DOJ. (?)

Although I do agree that the released statement seems to support the notion that other offshores like Merge can legally offer their services in states that do no have laws that make online poker illegal, it seems like there's a lot of potential snags. For example, if they continue to have trouble with banks refusing to process properly coded transactions, then they will more than likely continue to miscode deposits and withdrawals, which can in turn probably be prosecuted as some kind of bank fraud (?).