Warning about U.S. Licensing and Regulation: what is happening in Italy can happen to us!

[foldemfedero]

protectionism? I'm all for safe sex!

[phils08]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

Yep, that's the risk. Licensing and regulation can either be very good for us or very bad for us, depending on how the legislation and the regulations are worded. We have to stay on top of it and fight to get what is good for us. (Which is what the PPA is doing, btw, I'm pretty sure.)

The PPA's position may change in regards to this bill. Its been said several times by TE and skall that a decision will be made to support the bill, or to turn our backs.

If the bill in its final form turns out to kill the players and the off shore sites I think the PPA would oppose.

[phils08]

Originally Posted by phils08

The PPA's position may change in regards to this bill. Its been said several times by TE and skall that a decision will be made to support the bill, or to turn our backs.

If the bill in its final form turns out to kill the players and the off shore sites I think the PPA would oppose.

This is a post from michael j. He posted this in nvg in the italy thread. I find some of what he says very interesting especially in regards to US law.
Hello All,
As you are aware, PokerStars will restrict access to PokerStars.com site for players in Italy on July 27. We are doing this to comply with the new Italian law as it relates to online poker services.
Some people have made comparisons between our .COM services for players in the USA, so let us respond to them:
1) There is no licensing regime for online poker in the US. There is such regime in Italy, and we have an Italian license for our .IT site.
2) There is no law in the US that prohibits offering online poker. The new Italian law is very clear in prohibiting offering online poker by sites without a license. Note that this new Italian law was submitted for a pre-approval by the EU and it has been granted. PokerStars does not expect the EU to oppose or change the Italian Government's implementation of this regulation.
3) While currently there are no cash games and only Italians are allowed to play, the cash games have been already approved and are expected to be available by end of the year, and we hope that international liquidity will follow next year.
4) PokerStars supports introducing licensing in the US, and there are several proposals in the US Congress in this direction. If such law is passed, PokerStars will obtain a license and comply with the law. Thus PokerStars positions in the US and Italy are completely consistent.
To the contrary, it would be inconsistent and hypocritical for PokerStars (or any other site) to breach the Italian law, while at the same time supporting the US legislation, when Italy has already introduced licensing and regulation, accessible to every operator in good standing.
To address further queries from this thread:

Originally Posted by AlexB81 :
What if I m italian and I live in another place? If you live outside Italy, you will be able to continue playing on PokerStars.COM.

Originally Posted by Narkissoz :
Will they close Dario's account as well? Dario, and all other Team PokerStars Pro players who live in Italy, will need to abide by the same rules as everyone else.
These are not rules created by PokerStars: These are rules created by the Italian Government. PokerStars is abiding by the rules.
As laws throughout the world develop to regulate online poker, PokerStars believes that players will benefit: from secure online poker services, with clear regulation and rules, safer and easier money movement, and from honest and reliable operators.
If you have any further questions about our PokerStars.IT services, you can email us at support@pokerstars.it anytime.
Sincerely,
Michael J
PokerStars Game Security Team

[phils08]

I especially like the #4 in his post. He seems pretty certain that if and when legislation is passed stars will have a shot and a license, which is great if it happens that way. Personally I would choose to give back to a site that has stuck it out with us and finally would have a chance at being legit.

[JPFisher55]

PS is legit as it states that the US has no law prohibiting their service to US citizens. What would be interesting if US passed a licensing law and PS could not get a license (unlikely IMO) or it could get the license, but most states opted out. IMO, in either case, PS would assert that the US law violates the WTO and international law and violate such US law. The Italian market is not worth violating a law that the Eu has upheld and PS has a license to serve that market.

[phils08]

Jp don't you have to think if stars is pushing for legislation they maybe somehow know they will be able to get a license? Or at least that's what their lawyers have to assume.

Cause pushing for legislation and putting in lobbying dollars only to be stiffed later doesn't make any sense. The line they are taking seems to suggest confidence in getting into a legal US market. Is that the impression you're getting too or am I delusional?

Opinions on what mjps posted por favor.

[JPFisher55]

Originally Posted by phils08

Jp don't you have to think if stars is pushing for legislation they maybe somehow know they will be able to get a license? Or at least that's what their lawyers have to assume.

Cause pushing for legislation and putting in lobbying dollars only to be stiffed later doesn't make any sense. The line they are taking seems to suggest confidence in getting into a legal US market. Is that the impression you're getting too or am I delusional?

Opinions on what mjps posted por favor.

I have not read anything in Rep. Franks bill that prohibits or prejudices PS from obtaining a license. I agree that it and the other major online poker rooms will be able to get a license. But what will it be worth? Depends on the state opt out provision and how many states opt out. PS and FTP want US licensing so they can sell their stock on the LSE; so it may be worth a lot to these 2 companies regardless how many states opt out.

[phils08]

I really hope that we can get a provision in there to make it at least difficult for states to opt out. I guess we shall have to wait till the bill is up for our disecting and in its final stages

[DavidNB]

Originally Posted by sincityalpha

Massive LOL @ everything that wallstreet"pro" has said so far ITT. He is wrong on just about every statement that he maid in this thread. I just can't be bothered wasting my time debunking every one of his false statements. His thinking is completely backwards and just plain WRONG.

I bet if the clown actually has any $$$, it's only if he won the lotto or inherited it.... Otherwise, it's really hard to believe someone making a fortune in the markets over time, w/o even the basic understanding of econ 101.

Oh yeah capitalism=regulation, protectionism, monopoly privileges and high taxes.

Get a ******* clue....... seriously

Your wrong and he is right, very right

[Lunamondo]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

Yep, that's the risk. Licensing and regulation can either be very good for us or very bad for us, depending on how the legislation and the regulations are worded. We have to stay on top of it and fight to get what is good for us. (Which is what the PPA is doing, btw, I'm pretty sure.)

Maybe everything stays just the same as now (.com) but one will pay more rake and get less if any rakeback, as well as the choices will possibly be limited. The .com stuff as well as the EU stuff is/was very good (the one world) but now things can go into the wrong direction in so many ways. In the EU there is at least one good thing, that it's easier to move in to another country here, in case things stay better in some other country and one has e.g. no major language problems.

[Skallagrim]

Making predictions at this point is totally useless.

We first have to wait to see the Menendez bill, and then we will have to see how it gets amended as time passes before a floor vote.

I can assure you the PPA has worked extremely hard to get as good a poker bill as possible. I cant assure you that we have achieved all we would like. We can only wait and see when the Senator submits what HE (well, his staff at his direction, of course) has written.

I can say a few things to prepare all you guys, however. For one, state opt outs will be there. WE are working very hard to limit the ease of a state opting out (I really don't believe the final version will leave it up to the whim of the governor, as the current Frank bill does), but they will be there to one degree or another. If you're an online pro in a bad state, you might want to prepare to have to move, and you might want to get politically active in your state. Its ironic, I know, given the intrusion of the Feds into so much of our life, but "state's rights" still has power in this debate.

For states that go on the "opted out" list, you can be assured the PPA will fight to change that state by state.

There will also have to be some sort of penalty for sites that refuse to "play by the rules." Its hard to argue against that in principle, the real question centers around what the "rules" will be. The PPA is working hard to insure that any such penalty not apply to players, but we will see ....

There will also be some sort of cut for the government(s). So far, from all I have been told, the proposed "cut" is quite reasonable from the sites' point of view; but again, the final version is what counts.

So I am going to stop predicting or speculating. I have shared about as much "insider" knowledge as I am privy to. Lets start this discussion again once we have the Senate bill available to comment on directly.

Skallagrim

[LeapFrog]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

For one, state opt outs will be there.

Remind me again why the PPA supports a bill that might actually make things worse for US players? We don't even know what the full effects of the UIGEA regs will be nor the outcome of the legal challenges regarding the seizures. About the only argument for that I can see is 'strike while the iron is hot', ie, before '10 when there is the the chance that dems will lose some seats.

for what its worth, here is the stars response from the IT thread in the zoo

Originally Posted by PSMichaelJ

Hello All,

As you are aware, PokerStars will restrict access to PokerStars.com site for players in Italy on July 27. We are doing this to comply with the new Italian law as it relates to online poker services.

Some people have made comparisons between our .COM services for players in the USA, so let us respond to them:

1) There is no licensing regime for online poker in the US. There is such regime in Italy, and we have an Italian license for our .IT site.

2) There is no law in the US that prohibits offering online poker. The new Italian law is very clear in prohibiting offering online poker by sites without a license. Note that this new Italian law was submitted for a pre-approval by the EU and it has been granted. PokerStars does not expect the EU to oppose or change the Italian Government's implementation of this regulation.

3) While currently there are no cash games and only Italians are allowed to play, the cash games have been already approved and are expected to be available by end of the year, and we hope that international liquidity will follow next year.

4) PokerStars supports introducing licensing in the US, and there are several proposals in the US Congress in this direction. If such law is passed, PokerStars will obtain a license and comply with the law. Thus PokerStars positions in the US and Italy are completely consistent.

To the contrary, it would be inconsistent and hypocritical for PokerStars (or any other site) to breach the Italian law, while at the same time supporting the US legislation, when Italy has already introduced licensing and regulation, accessible to every operator in good standing.



To address further queries from this thread:

If you live outside Italy, you will be able to continue playing on PokerStars.COM.


Dario, and all other Team PokerStars Pro players who live in Italy, will need to abide by the same rules as everyone else.

These are not rules created by PokerStars: These are rules created by the Italian Government. PokerStars is abiding by the rules.

As laws throughout the world develop to regulate online poker, PokerStars believes that players will benefit: from secure online poker services, with clear regulation and rules, safer and easier money movement, and from honest and reliable operators.

If you have any further questions about our PokerStars.IT services, you can email us at support@pokerstars.it anytime.

Sincerely,

Michael J
PokerStars Game Security Team

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Making predictions at this point is totally useless.

We first have to wait to see the Menendez bill, and then we will have to see how it gets amended as time passes before a floor vote.

I can assure you the PPA has worked extremely hard to get as good a poker bill as possible. I cant assure you that we have achieved all we would like. We can only wait and see when the Senator submits what HE (well, his staff at his direction, of course) has written.

I can say a few things to prepare all you guys, however. For one, state opt outs will be there. WE are working very hard to limit the ease of a state opting out (I really don't believe the final version will leave it up to the whim of the governor, as the current Frank bill does), but they will be there to one degree or another. If you're an online pro in a bad state, you might want to prepare to have to move, and you might want to get politically active in your state. Its ironic, I know, given the intrusion of the Feds into so much of our life, but "state's rights" still has power in this debate.

For states that go on the "opted out" list, you can be assured the PPA will fight to change that state by state.

There will also have to be some sort of penalty for sites that refuse to "play by the rules." Its hard to argue against that in principle, the real question centers around what the "rules" will be. The PPA is working hard to insure that any such penalty not apply to players, but we will see ....

There will also be some sort of cut for the government(s). So far, from all I have been told, the proposed "cut" is quite reasonable from the sites' point of view; but again, the final version is what counts.

So I am going to stop predicting or speculating. I have shared about as much "insider" knowledge as I am privy to. Lets start this discussion again once we have the Senate bill available to comment on directly.

Skallagrim

Thanks for the update Skall, but the state opt-out/penalty issue is sort of everything.

Im stuck in a state for two years attending school, funding it partially through poker is going to make it a LOT easier. Im going to have to be pretty convinced that the vast majority of states will NOT opt out and the spread of regulated poker will occur pretty quickly in order to support a bill that could potentially bar me from playing poker for the next several years.

I mean if 49 states were going to opt in and mine wasn't, Id still support the bill, but Im not working against my short term interests to get a bill into place that allows poker in 10 states and leaves us fighting for years and years to get poker to all the states.

So my question is, not just for Skall but any PPA rep....what is the PPA's plan for evaluating how many states will opt out of whatever the final legislation looks like?

[phils08]

skall,

thanks for that post.

my question is do we have any leverage to actually get these changes done?

What course of action would we take if the majority of players would be effected negatively?

Do you see any situation that would make PPA pull back it's support from the frank bill?

I know these questions are somewhat hypotheticals, so if you dont have the answer id understand.

thanks again.

[JPFisher55]

Skall, how could the US government enforce a penalty against sites that decide not to get licensed by permit US players unless it penalizes the player? The site is offshore like say Bodog that will never get a license and will ignore US law like it does now. IMO, a US licensing statute may turn out to be great for Bodog.