you're right, my bad. I used the wrong acronym in that paragraph, I'm glad you knew what I meant.

The settlement is clear, Pokerstars can return when it's legal to do so

that means it isn't legal to do so yet, at least not outside NJ

None of the "Pokerstars is innocent" believers can explain what it is Pokerstars is waiting for, if what they were doing before was perfectly legal.

It didn't if you're talking about all 50 states.

Here are links to an ESPN article (lengthy) and related video (first 13 minutes) that came out last week that will answer most, if not all, of your questions.

Video [youtube.com]

Article [ESPN.com]

The video contains a graphic with the following information:

Daily Fantasy Sports
Legislation by State

Legally allowed states: 10
Recently contested states: 12
Historically banned: 5
Legislation proposed: 13
No current legislation: 10

It's my personal belief that DFS pretty much flew under the radar until FanDuel and DraftKings started advertising in a big way, and stories started coming out about how much money was being made:

At its peak last summer, a daily fantasy get-rich-now commercial aired every 90 seconds on television. Combined, industry leaders FanDuel and DraftKings plunged more than $750 million into TV commercials, radio spots, digital ads and other promotions. In the weeks leading up to the 2015 NFL season, the two startup companies spent more on advertising than the entire American beer industry.

If by "what they were doing", you mean "offering real money online poker to individuals in the United States", the Settlement does not say it was illegal to have done so.

"This Stipulation and Order of Settlement shall in no way be deemed an admission of any wrongdoing, culpability, liability, or guilt on behalf of the PokerStars Companies or any of their respective agents, officers or employees, past and present."

...

"Nothing in this Stipulation and Order of Settlement is intended to or shall limit the PokerStars Companies and their present or future affiliates from offering real-money online poker to individuals within the United States (including under the PokerStars or the Full Tilt Group's brands) if and when it becomes permissible to do so under relevant law."

I get your belief that something is illegal unless it is expressly legal, but that is not US law. I would suggest the Settlement used the words "permissible" under "relevant law" to avoid argument, as no wrongdoing was admitted. (Remember that during the time of these discussions DOJ had tossed in the towel with respect to coverage of online poker under the Federal Wire Act.)

There is no criminal common law. Unless something is expressly illegal to do, doing it is not criminal. A State which seeks to punish "illegal" activity must have a statute on its books that expressly makes the activity a criminal act and then prove conduct satisfying every element of the crime. Even the IGBA does not come into play absent some State statutory violation.

The sticking point is that the 2012 deal with the Feds did not bind any State from deeming Stars or anyone else a "bad actor" when enacting laws to license or regulate online poker, (or license or regulate DFS for that matter, which Stars does offer btw without a special license).

(A similar State/federal issue arises with sportsbetting within a State; there is no federal law which prohibits intrastate sportsbetting, only one which prohibits States from "authorizing" it. A State, like NJ, could simply repeal its existing criminal law against running a sportsbetting business, and sportsbooks in NJ would be legal, or "permissible" if you will. The meaning of "authorize" has been tested by the NJ attempts to make sports betting operations permissible by some, but not all, persons in NJ. That idea was struck down by the Third Circuit recently.)

To quote either Thelma or Louise, "The law is some tricky s**t". You might be surprised how many State-level laws which criminalize gambling historically tied illegal gambling to "use of a premises" within the State.

^^

guys, other than displaying that you dont like each, those walls of text are irrelevant to the CA Bad Actor quagmire for PPA (actually largely irrelevant to just about anything)

I thought the main discussion here was the PPA CA Bad Actor Quagmire and not so much an opportunity to pontificate about legal theory.

It doesn't say that, no. But it is certainly implied

yes, yes Well, they got them to stop and pay a fine, an admission is really irrelevant

See that? ^^ There's your smoking gun. "If and when" = "not at this time"

That is not my claim at all. But you seem to be claiming because you don't know what relevant statute makes it illegal, it therefore is legal.

So, it was legal then but isn't legal now? If it's legal now, why aren't they just doing it?

This is not strictly true. Some things are prohibited within state constitutions. For instance in my state, all gambling is prohibited by the state constitution unless specifically excepted through statute. I doubt WA is the only one.

(FWIW, I wrote a piece for onlinepokerreport.com two years ago detailing how Pokerstars' activity violated state and federal law prior to their leaving the market, something they did after legal challenge to their explicit prohibition failed, but some four years after it went into effect. The assertions I made in that piece have not been refuted by Pokerstars, though they were given the opportunity, nor anyone else)

Pokerstars wasn't licensed to operate in any state, so any state with licensing requirements for gambling has a statute on the books that Pokerstars violated.

Again, if it were legal to do so, they would have resumed operations.

The civil case against Pokerstars was dismissed with prejudice, which means they were absolved from past actions. There were not cleared of wrong doing, or 'exculpated' as Steve Ruddock put it in his latest defense of pokerstars story.

You seem to be trying to make the argument that "it was legal then, but they agreed not to do it anymore until it was legal-er"

that argument is idiotic

end of derail

ya let's allow all the euros and russians to come in and bust up all our fish. You know they have busted all of their fish and shat on them so let's be sure to let them do the same to the u.s donks.
Common sense sir, use some.

I served in this fight for five years as an unpaid volunteer, taking my current role when the organization needed it.

I'm not following your support for the bad actor amendment. This amendment killed the bill this year. What else could have happened? The Morongo have zero reason to get pushed around, then to feel like expediting legislation when they'd either be locked out for five years too (the legislation actually keeps out PS indefinitely) or would be starting from scratch to find a partner. Add to that the question of just how much time and effort PPA should devote year after year to a state that's this dysfunctional and I can't think of much else to do than to ask Grey to withdraw the amendments and to bring the parties back to the negotiating table.

Amaya donates to PPA. I think every site should, as sites benefit more from our work than even we as players. That being said, it doesn't really matter. We execute our function regardless.

I'm an independent board member. I've not spoken to Amaya about this issue. In fact, I've never spoken to them about any issue. I've met a couple of them once or twice at gaming conferences and that's it. My take is that these amendments are harmful to our efforts in CA, so we are speaking out.

I can give the speech on WHY poker should be licensed along with or before DFS better than anyone. That doesn't make it reality. Politicians and the general public have their own opinions. You should go to Capitol Hill and talk to some about one versus the other. It's not just lobbying. Surely you don't think Caesars, MGM, Amaya and all the others just don't know how to lobby, do you?

I am amazed that so many continue to believe the poker fight should be easy when all evidence points to the contrary.

The root problem with the PPA Club is money. Having an immediate family member working as a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry the past 12 years has been very enlightening.

As a person who loves live and wants online kept out of the US for purely selfish monetary reasons, I have no doubt the PPA will never come close to having the type of annual budget required to get Washington DC to go their way.

The problem seems the online sites are unwilling to invest the money required to get back in the US

Yes, I've always felt it should be the sites paying for the lobbying. They had the most to lose after all. Since when do customers have to lobby for a business they wish to patronize?

Lool keep "fighting" this with the same tired, losing positions. I look forward to the next thread telling us how close we were to passage in another one-off state that doesn't matter because no one could agree on who gets to steal all of the money. Meanwhile, players from across the U.S. will enter 92,845 times in the SUNDAY MILLION--on Fanduel--in two weeks.

tbh this part really does matter to a lot of us. What % of total funding comes from Amaya? Not as in they make up .003% of total people funding.... but what % of money do they donate? To dodge this question is like a politician dancing on ice. Say it and then people can decide how much faith they want in the PPA to carry our fight.

btw I don't think the PCA is really a gaming conference...

The fact that it's being asked means it matters to someone and it's fair to give them a fair answer and not do as 7G said with "dancing on ice". But this is the same old tired statement from Rich. PPA is rubbish.

Much respect, it's a thankless job

it won't pass without bad actor language either. You keep asserting it was going to. It is unlikely a lawmaker screws his own bill up for no good reason. Gray counted the votes without bad actors, and they weren't there. I'm sure he was hoping those who are indifferent to Pokerstars' entry would join the Pechanga et al coalition and support the bill. Apparently he counted the votes and they still weren't there.

You can't say the amendment killed the bill without showing it was going to pass without it. Dead is dead

I don't doubt Morongo are a powerful lobby, but so is Pechanga. Meanwhile you continue to downplay Pokerstars' role in this effort. But it is a matter of public record that, since forming their coalition two years ago, Pokerstars has outspent Morongo and Commerce Casino combined. And that money talks.

So next year it's back to the drawing board. What will change? What is compromise?

And why did Pappas say the PPA would support the bill in any form as long as player protections were there, then come out against the bill in its current form, which still includes those player protections??

To me, that was the defining moment, when the PPA took the side of Pokerstars over passage of a bill.

IMHO, the PPA should have still supported the bill, even as amended, even if begrungingly. That was the moment where you have to make the crying call for the good of the effort. PPA could have made a strong statement against the amendment, but supported it anyway.

That's what I call compromise. What do you call compromise?

Why should Pechanga support a bill that will ultimately only benefit Pokerstars, with few others making any money from ipoker?

Agreed, the main goal should be to get it passed because once California allows online poker it increases the likelihood the other states will follow suit. Then poker stars could use their money to go after those other states with the possibility of getting into California years later as nationwide poker grows.

Notice how fantasy sites are not restricted to operating in the state they are licensed? Imagine Fanduel if they had to segregate players by state.

Why would anybody ever agree to a poker bill that prohibits sharing liquidity between licensed states? One step forward, 10 steps back.

Why is the UIGEA rhetoric allowed to continue? It's a banking bill that deals with payment processing for illegal gambling.

Playing poker for cash isn't illegal in many places. Only when the house starts raking does it become a crime for the operator (not the player).

Furthermore, poker is a skill game. There are numerous studies and sufficient math to back this up. Saying that politicians don't get it after all this time is nothing more than an indictment on PPA abilities to do their job. I respect that you have dedicated yourself to this cause, and you seem like a nice guy, but that doesn't give the PPA a pass for being ineffective.

That's because it's clear to everyone except the PPA and certain legal "scholars" that the most vital thing about this product is the (nonlinear) network effects that arise from player liquidity. A great narrative for states now is that some states tried online poker and the numbers were underwhelming. The pipe dream that we could start small and build a large network of states in any reasonable time horizon was stillborn, and still is. I find it of little coincidence that some of the people in charge of this movement are noted states' rights fundamentalists that don't understand how the internet works.

not trying to bully this thread, but the above is in my mind the most salient point and great teaching moment for all.

all the other UIEGA , IGRA, skill vs luck discussion is important but prob in the legislative thread.

What can be learned from the CA PPA Bad Actor conflict so that its not repeated in other states?

as long as Pokerstars funds them and players dont, there isnt anything we can do. the PPA is not accountable to the players they claim to represent

Sent from my LGL33L using Tapatalk

All the fantasy sports bills being passed (and that will pass) in each State should be the basis for any future poker bills going through that same State. All the age restriction, location restriction, deposit/withdrawal restriction fantasy sports has in place should work for poker too. Fanduel's traffic is aggregated, so ipoker should be as well.

The bad actor situation is just a microcosm that is the PPA representing itself as a consumer protection agency when in fact it is a trade organization. Pokerstars has no goodwill left, and besides, it's a casino now.

Who gives a **** whether or not pokerstars can enter the market? Pokerstars. Who pays the PPA? Pokerstars.

How to not repeat?

1. Dump Pokerstars and disassociate all together.

2. Approach the Fertitta's about relaunching Ultimate Poker with much better software. They have billions and respect.

So transparency toward the players you represent isn't a thing? It matters. Don't you feel an obligation to be honest with these people? Don't you dare say you're not being dishonest because by brushing it off, you aren't answering and that's the same as being dishonest in your position.

+1

I thought it was well known sites paid the bills and they where more of a site lobbying group then a player one. If i remember right... a site even paid my initial membership fee. At least that was my impression from the early goings. Haven't been paying much attention of late.

You wouldn't know this from their website (where they claim to represent players) or the way they talk.

I don't have a problem with the PPA representing the sites (Amaya) and being financed by them. I do object to them claiming they represent the players. It is also very questionable whether they should be taking membership fees from players on this pretence.

The interests of players and sites do not always align. For example, at this stage players' best interests are served by Amaya not being allowed back in the US for a period to allow some serious competition to build up which can help prevent Amaya from further abusing the players with its near monopoly. PPA are clearly taking the opposite position.