Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Tall
The key differences from DFS to online poker, is DFS in the US, US companies are offering it, backed by prominent US entities/individuals. You cannot get payment approval in the US w/o legal clarity. You have to apply, present your legal opinions (written by experienced lawyers), go through underwriting, then get approved. (for PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, etc)
This is a big difference. I do wish the industry would use this message this more. Call DFS skill gaming, call it gambling, the fact is it's legal, and there are documents to back that up.
I've been researching state laws, and I'm not a lawyer, but I have to think there are issues in more states if an aggressive AG gets involved. I've found a few state laws that make me wonder how a court would rule. Here are two examples:
Texas says:
Quote:
"Bet" means an agreement to win or lose something of value solely or partially by chance.
It goes on to exempt insurance, animal, car and boat races. Then it says it is illegal to:
Quote:
Make a bet on the partial or final result of a game or contest or on the performance of a participant in a game or contest.
Is DFS is partially by chance? I think it is. Maybe the plural between "participant" and "participants" makes all the difference in the world. I wouldn't bet on it. If you bet on two participants, you're also betting on one.
Tennessee says:
Quote:
Gambling is contrary to the public policy of this state and means risking anything of value for a profit whose return is to any degree contingent on chance
Does DFS fall outside of any degree contingent on chance? It seems to me that some chance is involved.
Quote:
(a) A person commits an offense who knowingly induces or aids another to engage in gambling, and:
(1) Intends to derive or derives an economic benefit other than personal winnings from the gambling
DFS sites can't claim any personal winnings. They make their money off the rake. A different section seems to exempt office pools and fantasy contests where nobody has an edge beyond skill or luck.
Those are just samples. I certainly wouldn't bet my net worth or freedom on the DFS side of the argument in states where "partially by chance" and "any degree contingent on chance" are considered bets.
This doesn't mean a state AG will pursue this, or that I am correct and not missing some other law that offsets it. It at least gives me enough reason to question what would happen if the issue made it to court in these states, especially ones with a history of being anti gambling.
The sites being wrong in Nevada is enough to question whether they are also wrong in other states. If DFS loses in NY, I think they are illegal in numerous other states with the same or lesser degree of chance in gambling statutes, if challenged. I can't help but think that the industry as it is now implodes if the NYAG wins this battle.
Last edited by John Mehaffey; 11-17-2015 at 07:28 AM.