"Give him another month in the hole!" LOL.

Nevertheless Gzesh, please read my last response to Mr. Fett. Actually, I was wrong in my response to Mr. Fett. I said 2 when it was 3 more times. Please see exhibit A below.

Exhibit A - Post #117 (latter 2 paragraphs as you also first read which is important simply for CONTEXT):

Powerball or Megamillions let alone interstate online poker etc.. ARE in violation under this ridiculous new 2019 (vs. the 2011) Wire Act interpretation imho. But again, time will have to play out in the courts as next step regardless.

Btw, "nonprofit groups that distribute proceeds of lotteries to state governments" is a completely moot point arcdog. Placing bets and the sharing of info across state lines by servers is key and that occurs not just in interstate online poker pacts but also interstate lotteries today. Sports betting across interstate lines will/should be in danger under the 2019 interpretation too imho. IF this Wire Act interpretation is upheld, many states imho may go into mini (if not larger economic tailspins) due to loss of major revenue generators from their lotteries alone. Many states are already hungry for more revenue to pad their dwindling budgets. This will just send them nicely in the OTHER direction when all is said and done. Now only if states were like stocks that could be shorted. Oh well.

Again, my question still stands in post #121 - how can your b) hold under this new interpretation that will (if not already) prohibit other gambling like interstate poker pacts between those states where it is already legal??? Like I said, under one rule of law, YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.

Hi HurtLocker,

Some other readers may also have similar questions, so I will do my best to address them.

As I pointed out in Post #116 ITT -- some people who deal directly with these issues are concerned that the Wire Act re-interpretation could expose state regulated lotteries to potential federal prosecution following June 14th, 2019.

BUT... listen to (45:16-47:24) of the audio file I linked in that post. Former NJDGE official George Rover outlines the potential difficulty in proving "irreparable harm" in this specific case, but also believes a formal "stay" of prosecution is likely -- at least until the case(s) can progress through the courts.

At (50:15-54:17) Mr. Rover (who has first-hand experience dealing with these issues in New Jersey) defends state regulators' ability to oversee licensed gambling services, along with their capabilities to fully comply with Anti-Money Laundering (AML), Know Your Customer (KYC), and geolocation requirements. He goes on to criticize the new DOJ-OLC interpretation of the 1961 Wire Act, and implies that the federal government may not have fully considered the "ramifications" it will have. This is because the (now-reversed) 2011 DOJ opinion was viewed by some states, like New Jersey, as a green light to go ahead with formally licensed iGaming products.

Afterwards, Mr. Rover comments that "the risk is massive," but counters that he is advising his own clients (via Princeton Global Strategies) that "there's just no way this opinion will stand." He then cites the figure referenced in the New Hampshire Lottery Commission suit, estimating that NH could lose "$90 million" annually.

So while the new Wire Act opinion is being viewed as a threat by some who have first-hand knowledge of the industry, these same individuals also opine that -- once cooler heads prevail -- the federal government probably won't arbitrarily uproot at the very least statewide lotteries (and their corresponding infrastructure/social funding).

So this brings us to the New Hampshire Lottery Commission civil suit, and which arguments will be heard, how they will be presented, etc. The latest information I've read on this is that the hearing could conclude by late May.

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/36...-expected-may/

If arguments are presented on behalf of the Multi-State Internet Gaming Agreement (MSIGA) that currently exists between New Jersey/Nevada/Delaware, and if that compact were to be granted some form of prosecutorial "stay" or clarification from the courts (therefor insulating banks/regulators from potential "interstate" liability) -- something like that would seemingly provide clarity for "shared liquidity" statewide online poker to continue in the United States after June 14th.

Like I said in another post, there is a lot of uncertainty on this topic, and it could potentially impact millions of Americans due to the potential tax revenue lost as a result of the new Wire Act interpretation.

This topic is FAR too complex for one individual to really have a lockdown perspective on everything that's taking place, or exactly how it will all turn out. IMO 2+2 readers interested in this subject should take the time to go through posts by curtinsea, Gzesh, Josem, Rich Muny and others who are contributing. These individuals would all have superior insight for our readers than my own on this topic due to their unique experiences on the industry/lobbyist/legislative/legal side. What I'm providing here is just a summary of some information that's out there which I believe to be of high quality/relevance, just keep in mind that there are, conservatively speaking, thousands of qualified professionals who currently labor in the "Wire Act/gambling/legal/industry" realm, all of whom possess unique insight, experience, and knowledge. Hopefully some of this can be relayed to readers here who wish to become more informed.
---

The specific U.S. Code that Gzesh is referring to in Post #118 ITT can be found below.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1084

Section 1084 "(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of information for use in news reporting of sporting events or contests, or for the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest from a State or foreign country where betting on that sporting event or contest is legal into a State or foreign country in which such betting is legal."

As a layperson, this seems to make it clear that as long as the activity is "legal" in both jurisdictions, then the interstate activity is explicitly allowed? It seems so to me, but of course that means nothing.

And there exists a counter-argument to this view. In a 2018 article published by Forbes (see link below), contributor Daniel Wallach argues that since the term "state law" is not directly used in Section 1084(a), the Wire Act can be enforced even if the activity is legal in each state.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielw.../#26b08b2646c5
---

My apologies for the long essay and run-on sentences as always. I hope this helps and results in more poker players becoming aware of what's happening with regulated online poker in the United States.

-David

Please don't apologies for putting these summaries together - they're super helpful.

Thank you!

Online Poker will be FULLY regulated federally by the end of 2020.

We live in an EVER abundant universe and the NEXT poker boom is upon us.

Rejoice. +

I think this has virtually zero chance of coming to fruition.

No apologies mate. Much appreciated info there.

Just to follow up with the aforementioned, lets assume for argument's (no pun intended) sake that NO arguments are presented on behalf of the MSIGA but only the state lotteries in the courts. Lets also assume that there is a hopefully favorable decision when all is said and done in the courts for the lotteries. Can/would/will that apply to interstate poker too in your opinion? In other words, can the (interstate) lotteries' decision apply as precedent for interstate online poker pacts? I understand that your nor my opinion means squat but I am just curious. Anyone else can feel free to chime in too. IMHO, it would be ridiculous if not hypocritically unfair NOT to apply the interstate lotteries decision to interstate online poker pacts but I am no lawyer and again like you intimated - only the courts' decision will matter.

I don't know.

There are likely individuals who could provide competent insight, but I'm not intimately familiar with how such a scenario would be interpreted (or even if it's a possible outcome) because I lack the research knowledge related to this specific question.

From a research perspective, this may not be a question that a newbie could grind a weekend on Google and then adequately decipher. Plus there are a ton of other sources of relevant info, "boots on the ground coverage," and so on that one would need to consider in order to gain a more robust understanding of the issues.

It's an interesting question though.

lol, You are like the guy who bets on both teams in a game so he can claim he wins on every game he bets.

Okay ... one time, because dhubermex, who I respect for his hard work and insight, may benefit ...

The 2019 interpretation discusses the scope of Section 1804(a).

What Section 1804(b) does however is exempt from prohibition under Section 1804(a) everything that fits under Section 1804(b) .... which if NJ and Nevada agree, that means their residents can play in interstate pools for poker.

It doesn't matter how broadly the 2019 Interpretation spread Section 1804(a) of the Wire Act statute, because it appears from the plain language of Section 1804(b) of the same Act that States or foreign jurisdictions can agree to shield activities from Section 1804(a).

It's not "my b)" whatever you think that phrase means, it is written into the Wire Act

This view fits with the historic regulation of gaming at the State level. The Wire Act did not take that away in 1961, since 1961 the Section 1804(b) has carved-out and preserved States' rights to legislate or regulate gaming AND to approve/regulate interstate compacts between or among them. All the 2019 expansion of Section 1804(a) does is make interstate compacts necessary under Section 1804(b).

Go read Section 1804(b), which dhubermex quotes above itt. ?

(I have no idea what you mean so vehemently by "under one rule of law" or eating dramatically upper-case "CAKE". There is one law being discussed, the Wire Act.)

(There is a counter cautionary view, voiced by a respected gaming lawyer I know who is not named Dan, but I think the argument I make holds water.)

I was under the impression that the new opinion basically said section a applies to all betting, while section b still only applies to sports betting. So sports betting between states where it is expressly legal to do so in both states is fine, but poker or other gambling online between 2 states, even if it is legal to do so in both states, is not allowed, because the exemption b provides only applies to sports betting.

The exact same language appears in both subsections: "sporting event or contest".

Highly unusual statutory construction if it changes meaning from Section 1804(a) when it is repeated in Section 1804 (b) enacted at the same time in the same bill.

Delaware runs it. <-------in Delaware

They are not saying it is changing meanings, they are saying "sporting event or contest" isn't included in all the prohibitions in 1084(a).

The way I read the new opinion, it says 1084(a) has 2 different clauses with 2 different prohibitions each, for 4 total separate prohibitions. Breaking down the text from the opinion...

"The first clause bars anyone in the gambling business from knowingly using a wire communication facility to transmit"
a) bets or wagers
b) information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest

"The second clause bars any such person from transmitting wire
communications that entitle the recipient to “receive money or credit”
either"
c) as a result of bets or wagers
d) for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers.

The way the opinion breaks it down, they say a,c,d don't have the sports gambling modifier and therefore cover any gambling bets or wagers.

This differs from the 2011 opinion which said the sports betting modifier essentially applied to the first bets and wagers found in 1084(a) too, and therefore meant sporting event bets or wagers was all that was covered.

1084(b) on the other hand isn't quite as ambiguous in its wording as 1084(a).

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent
a)the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of information for use in news reporting of sporting events or contests
b)the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest from a State or foreign country where betting on that sporting event or contest is legal into a State or foreign country in which such betting is legal"

The exemptions of 1084(a) found in 1084(b) all have the modifier sporting events or contests. IMO this is how they can say it is their opinion that 1084(a) covers any "bets or wagers" while 1084(b) exemptions only cover sporting event bets or wagers.

I understand what you report was said, but it is crazy statutory construction to think that sports betting, and only sports betting, was preserved as a States rights matter when both talk about "contests", but contests is somehow not covered in 1804 b).

They likely started the Memo with the conclusion already inked in at the top of the page: "The Wire Act covers more than just sports, it covers everything."* They apparently decided to say the Wire Act was tougher on non-sports bets or wagers than on Sport bets or wagers; that is a seriously flawed reading of the Act.

Similarly, "bets or wagers" on what ? Both sub-sections cover "bets or wagers" on both sporting events or contests. It is nuts or disingenuous to pretend the Act treats "bets and wagers" differently under Section 1804(b) on sports v. on contests.

Look, this is 1804(b) matter is not a point I especially care about, aside from just posting theory here or discussing the law for folks looking at preserving social gaming or free gaming in light of the 2019 OLG memo.

When I had skin in the game, I had always felt that the Wire Act Section 1804(a) covered only sports, the In re Mastercard case was rightly decided, and there was no federal law against offering online poker unless in violation of some State law. In my view the eventual 2011 OLG memo was correct. (I felt confident enough in my reading of the Act that I launched an online poker business that accepted US players in 2001, 10 years before the 2011 OLG memo. I kept a careful eye on the IGBA, Travel Act, etc. and emerging State laws. I eventually sold the operation over ten years ago.)

Ouch. So does this mean Gzesh I used up my ONE TIME? I was hoping to save it for the courts right before a decision in May or June is purportedly made as I understand it. Heaven knows We little People of online poker need all the help we can get. Besides, we ALL need to benefit and understand from each other as knowledge is power. Leave the hiding of info and knowledge between us on the poker table, not off it. Besides you're the attorney, not me. I just phone it in to my reps who don't return my calls lol.

Well, the State Bar might yank my license if I give up too much info and knowledge for free.

(I have not kept track of the litigation that has been filed by various folks. Until there are some decisions announced, they are just arguments by either side. Your "one time" was used only with me, you still have it for the "courts" unless there is some past indiscretion we perhaps don't know about....

One more "one time": if you want a good source for insight, look for discussions by Tony Cabot if he gives any online. Take discussion by other "expert" counsel I've seen quoted with a grain of skepticism .https://www.reviewjournal.com/busine...-says-1614119/ Fwiw, I disagree with him on some of his points, and think Section 1804 b) does save the day if it is litigated.

(The discussion of where an appeal would lie is interesting.

“I think it’s going to be appealed in the First Circuit, no matter who wins or loses,” Cabot said. “I have a feeling the U.S. Department of Justice loses any appeal in the First Circuit."

There was a US 5th Circuit court decision already on point years ago, the In Re Mastercard Litigation case, but the US was not a party.)

I definitely agree with the bold. You are obviously much more informed on all things gambling law related and I hope your interpretation of the wire act is what is eventually cemented by the courts again, as it did in Re Mastercard.

+1 to what sideline said.

Thanks Gzesh and others for taking the time to provide informed feedback on this topic. It's extremely helpful and gives 2+2 readers a unique resource for learning more about the issues.

As Gzesh said, there's some information he and others aren't going to post, and I 100% sympathize. Either way, thank you very much for your meaningful contributions in bringing those of us interested in regulated U.S. online poker up to speed -- and for posting what you can/will.

How would all of this affect non regulated sites like America's Cardroom? Would it be become a criminal act for them to operate assuming the current interpretation (reinterpretation) stands?

Hi Lozgod,

I don't personally have any information to share about this. My realm of study is formally "regulated," "licensed" or "legalized" online poker/gambling sites -- specifically those that are lawfully permitted under statewide authority in U.S. jurisdictions such as New Jersey, Nevada, Delaware, and (pending launch) Pennsylvania.

Although poker players may intermingle their patronage among formally "regulated" and "unregulated" (aka offshore) sites -- thereby becoming part of one poker-playing "community," the same is not true for the regulated vs. unregulated industries.

So because I myself provide analysis on behalf of formally regulated/licensed online poker/iGaming interests, I am biased when I say that even if I did possess some expert knowledge about unregulated/offshore services, troubleshooting them on a public forum while at the same time performing tasks as a writer/analyst for statewide-licensed interests (in a commercial capacity of all things) might just be too much too-much-ed-ness at the end of the day. Not to mention potentially illegal depending on how strict statewide regulations eventually become on locking out offshore competitors.

I'm unsure if anyone in the regulated iGaming space is concerning themselves at the moment with doing any solids for offshore sites, myself included. Other contributors may obviously have a different way of viewing things, but just wanted to give you a very vague/incomplete take from the perspective of someone who does deal with a lot of public information on the regulated side of things, but who also lacks the expert knowledge on this topic to provide anything genuinely helpful regarding unregulated/offshore sites.

All the best,

-David

it is already a criminal act for them to operate, regardless of the Wire Act interpretation

Pokerstars, Full Tilt, and AB/UB were not charged with violating the Wire Act

News today that US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has submitted a memo stating that the Department of Justice "did not conclude that lotteries are impacted by the new opinion."

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/36...ate-lotteries/

OPR's Dustin Gouker writes that sources and the website believe "this move is an attempt to scuttle the federal case brought by the New Hampshire state lottery and limit the scope of the OLC memo to online gambling that is not conducted by lotteries."
---

EDIT

Here's some Twitter reaction shortly after the news broke.

The part that confuses me is why the Federal Govt has a thorn in their side about online poker. I know they lost the fight vs legalized state sanctioned sports betting but that was a different administration. It doesn't make sense (as an observer, maybe there's a larger dynamic).