Why Can't Pokerstars Re-Enter the US Market Containment Thread

[bwslim69]

Originally Posted by thedinergetsby

Ugh Shaun Deep on tearing up my heart

I would guess that all his post means is that they will not be blocked from re-entry post regulation.

[jackaaron]

Originally Posted by Koko the munkey

Exactly. And why would PS fork over three-quarters of a BILLION dollars to the DOJ for a company whose marketshare they already largely own? Think about it... what is the upside for PS, besides the ability to re-enter the US market at a future point?

None that I can see.

The software? LOL it ain't worth that much.

This is actually a great point.

My thinking has been, up to this point, why would any casino's in conjunction with politicians, allow PS to enter our market.

I never considered that Stars could be like "Eff Congress" and make a deal with the DOJ while Congress doesn't even give a crap, and maybe never would.

[Jerle Minara]

A question.. We know there are like 39 states that don't make it illegal to gamble online.

With the wire act clarification removing iPoker from the list of permitted activities, wouldn't that make it legal to place poker wagers in the 39 states that are not regulate, thereby preventing the UIGEA from coming into play?

In that scenario, wouldn't that permit stars and/or FTP2 to reenter the US market in those 39 states, assuming the DOJ indictments were resolved?

Edit: I'm looking at the UIGEA now and the definitions have "Unlawful Internet gambling" defined as betting, receiving, or transmitting a bet that is illegal under federal, state, or tribal law. The meat of the act is to make it a crime to convey money for bets made via illegal internet gambling.

Since there's no federal regulation prohibiting online poker and in most states there's no state law prohibiting online gambling, doesn't that make the UIGEA not actually apply to those 39 states?

[knn05]

Originally Posted by Jerle Minara

A question.. We know there are like 39 states that don't make it illegal to gamble online.

With the wire act clarification removing iPoker from the list of permitted activities, wouldn't that make it legal to place poker wagers in the 39 states that are not regulate, thereby preventing the UIGEA from coming into play?

In that scenario, wouldn't that permit stars and/or FTP2 to reenter the US market in those 39 states, assuming the DOJ indictments were resolved?

Edit: I'm looking at the UIGEA now and the definitions have "Unlawful Internet gambling" defined as betting, receiving, or transmitting a bet that is illegal under federal, state, or tribal law. The meat of the act is to make it a crime to convey money for bets made via illegal internet gambling.

Since there's no federal regulation prohibiting online poker and in most states there's no state law prohibiting online gambling, doesn't that make the UIGEA not actually apply to those 39 states?

I really would also like to know the answer to this. Wire act doesn't apply and UIGEA relies on state laws to be enacted (as far as my understanding goes....which, I openly admit to not being a lawyer).

So how is it that online poker couldn't be offered in states where laws don't expressly trigger UIGEA?

[sofocused978]

So if FTP/PS come back there will be a guaranteed explosion in US poker sites without federal legislation right? Caesars, MGM, South Point, etc won't just sit around and watch this **** go down.

[LastLife]

There is also the IGBA to think about. I doubt it's as high as 39 states. Poker sites would have to get legal opinions from every state, not to mention the player pool would continue to get smaller due to changing laws instead of the opposite. It would be a very short term decision, if any site planning to be a player in a regulated market opened up to US players.

[tamiller866]

The DOJ clarification that would need to be made for the UIGEA not to be triggered by online poker is the IGBA, which makes operating a gambling business a federal crime simply by operating unlicensed by the state in which the player resides.

If the courts or the DOJ would force states hands by saying that online poker must be made specifically illegal in order to trigger the UIGEA, which they should since the business of poker occurs where the money is not where the player is, but right now the DOJ has maintained and courts have upheld (in sports booking cases) that the business occurs both where the bet is placed as well as where it is accepted.

Arguing the difference between sports bets and poker play might keep one out of jail, but won't inspire anyone to begin accepting U.S. players or processing deposits until the state in which the player resides either licenses the site or opts into another state/federal pool.

[Jerle Minara]

Ah see where I made the mistake is that I was thinking only about the states that don't expressly prohibit online gambling or betting.

Since the bet occurs both where the player is in addition to where the servers are located, the various state regulations regarding limitation of bets and such come into play and the UIGEA slams it shut.

And here I was hoping I'd discovered a giant loophole in the law that was opened with the clarification of the Wire Act. Ohwell ;P

[knn05]

Yeah, I see now. I hadn't thought about the IGBA. Sucks. So basically, Stars is purchasing FTP and settling with the DOJ so that they have a "clean" company that can operate in the US if/when things get regulated here.

[Jerle Minara]

I still think there's room for some legal avenue to be available simply because I'm left unconvinced that Stars would be shelling out half a billion dollars + player balances just to have a clean inroad when the legislation does come down the pipe.

Time will tell.

[dcviperboy]

Originally Posted by thedinergetsby

Ugh Shaun Deep on tearing up my heart

What was the exact Dee quote. I can't find it.

[PokerXanadu]

I would expect to see PS (& the new FTP) apply for a NV license to be a service provider once this deal is complete. They would then look for (or already have in the works) a provider agreement with one or more of the NV casino companies.

Once PS has settled all outstanding legal issues with the DOJ, the door will be open for them to participate in whichever US states i-poker becomes licensed and regulated.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

I would expect to see PS (& the new FTP) apply for a NV license to be a service provider once this deal is complete. They would then look for (or already have in the works) a provider agreement with one or more of the NV casino companies.

Once PS has settled all outstanding legal issues with the DOJ, the door will be open for them to participate in whichever US states i-poker becomes licensed and regulated.

Being able to apply for a license ≠ Being granted a license.

LOL, at everyone saying that all you have to do is throw money at the problem. If it were that simple, wouldn't Caesar's be online already?

[sba9630]

Originally Posted by dcviperboy

What was the exact Dee quote. I can't find it.

Originally Posted by shaundeeb

I feel bad making a new thread but dont want this info lost elsewhere but cliffs are included my source I trust a lot.

Anyways the deal is already done by what I am told;

Players will be paid within 90 days
FTP will be open in the US market
Isai will be stepping down from the company

If these statements are true I feel that Isai deserves all our thanks+ business in the future with his company he is bailing out the igaming industry's tarnished reputation

Originally Posted by Karak

Here's my take:

I talked to some people who heard the same thing as Deeb did. Their understanding is as follows: the implication is that FTP will be marketed as a "clean" poker site with all "bad actors" (such as Isai or other people indicted on Black Friday) removed to the US market WHEN/IF regulation/legalization becomes a reality in the US. Meaning them re-opening to the US market is not understood to be an imminent thing, but something which will require future political/legal/legislative action.

Again, my friends said they are implying this based off some vague reports they've heard from insiders privy to information about the deal. It appears no one said anything explicitly.

.

[TheDarkElf]

In general, too much reliance on "trusted sources", and not enough on common sense.