I know nothing about the case and just think for PS to take 700k they know something nd have prepared for every eventuality inc this lawsuit.

I'm taking a wild guess and Vayo either fell out with his bird / turned a brokeass down for a steak etc etc

3rd party says I know u VPN when shouldn't have, gimme 50%/ ur love/ a steak/ still no dice - they think lol I show u and fires an email to PS.

- hilarity ensues (not really), veyo loses 700k etc etc

Basically PS - KNOW - he has vpn in the past and KNOW he can't proved his every location all the time , and he's screwed basically

Thanks for your summary, Josem. It really helps to have the background description from a knowledgeable person. If you can comment occasionally as things progress, that would be great.

Now I can enjoy the 2+2 silliness and know what's going on. That's what makes this site great!

Right, it’s a “preponderance” standard, not a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard as in a criminal case. Both sides have stories, judge/jury goes with whichever one is more likely. IMO Vayo’s story is far less likely to be fully true, though the situation is pretty complicated since there’s a decent chance Vayo cheated at one point but not necessarily when he won the tourney. If that’s the case it does seem like there would be room for some sort of settlement.

I’m sure this has been covered,

My question is if he played legally when won the 700k but got caught after cheating(vpn) then could stars keep everything or just what he won while using vpn

^asking for a friend

PokerStars has previously said that they would confiscate only net profits in the USA.

I don't know what their current policy is, the various discussion in this thread calls all of into question. Maybe they've changed, I don't know.

I think that Stars would simply seize all the funds in the account. They could be nice and say “gotcha” and only take the 2k you wagered with or whatever. But any chance of fair negotiation is out the window after all the DOJ mess after Black Friday. If you VPN on Stars you are risking your balance, period. So, this is why Vayo is adamant that he was ALWAYS outside the US when accessing his account.

Not quite that way ....Generally speaking, the Plaintiff goes first. If his story is insufficient to prove his claims, the Defendant asks the Judge to dismiss the case/enter a verdict or something like that, This dismissal is sought before the Defendant has to present its story.

It is not simply a matter of whose story of the two is more likely true. Both stories might be 100% true and believable, for example:

Plaintiff Player proves he did not VPN from the US during a particular tournament.
Defendant Site proves Player did VPN from the US at some other time.
Both agree that Defendant Site has refused to cash out Player's balance.

Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to any recovery under those facts depends upon the application of the law to the facts.

Yeah I just feel like Vayo has enough of a case that there isn't just a dismissal and both sides end up having to provide evidence, but my overall point is just that Vayo does indeed have to provide evidence. He can't just take "a sit back and make stars prove it" approach. Also what you're saying is that since Vayo is the plaintiff he's obligated to provide his evidence first anyway.

I do not know what is going to be required by the Californian court - that's a legal question, and beyond my expertise.

However, a situation described above - where the accused has to prove his innocence - is a fundamental injustice in the current resolution of online game integrity issues.

PokerStars first famously faced this problem when TeddyFBI's mother was accused of being a bot. It took this forum, and the founder of PokerStars, to personally intervene and fix that. In the intervening period, PokerStars has been pretty good on this issue.

To apply that last paragraph to this particular issue, either:
a) PokerStars knows something that we don't; or
b) PokerStars' policy on such things has changed.

I'm hopeful that it is (a), but (b) is also possible. I don't know.

So if someone was to use illegal software, but during the time made no net profits,stars wouldn’t confiscate any remaining balance and just ask you stop using the illegal software ?

Huh? That was not the question that was asked. Your question is unrelated to my post above.

If you have a genuine question about PokerStars' policy on this area, you should contact them. I'm not here on their behalf.

I wonder if first place pays -$700k again this year.

Basically, yes. If it gets that far .

Add to that the jurisdictional issue if Stars did not "touch" California sufficiently and if Vayo can get around the TOS reference of disputes to IOM courts. (Remember, Vayo is a plaintiff who has little trouble traveling internationally to pursue poker and there ARE courts on the IOM.)

My off the cuff guess is he does get by the first challenge, the second is probably tougher, but neither loss would block filing a new action on the IOM.

I would think this dispute should have settled before this point, only the parties would know why it has not.

This sums it up, and why it may ultimately be a problem for Vayo *if he was in the US during play.*

We live in a world where it is easy to determine one's location, especially if that person is living a normal day to day, hour to hour, life. Think about your activities from the last 24 hours:

- Have you logged on to a social media site?
- Have you used your mobile phone?
- Have you driven your car through a toll booth?
- Have you spent any money (or crypto) on a cup of coffee?
- Have you used any pay service like Hulu, Netflix, etc.?

Any of these activities will pinpoint your location to a reasonable certainty at least as far as proving one's presence in a particular country, state, county, city, town, or even street.

Why is this relevant? Because PS lawyers will ask for, and the court will compel Vayo (or the relevant service providers) to turn over data that will lead to determining Vayo's location.

This case will, eventually, be very simple. Either Vayo will document his actual presence out of the US or PS will receive indisputable proof that Vayo was in the US. The days of "trust me, I have an alibi" are long over. We all leave electronic footprints. Unless we turn our phones off, pay cash, and decline to interact with others, our locations are easily discernible.

Does anyone really believe Vayo turned his mobile phone off while he was grinding PS?

I expect this case to settle, discovery costs money and this does not seem a case where fees and costs would be awarded the winner, also there are reputation costs for the loser.

My initial thoughts were that it'd settle too, but if Stars is absolutely convinced he was in the US (and I'll bet they are since we've gotten this far), they might have decided internally that they have a duty to redistribute the funds in the prize pool. They'd presumably wait until everything's finalized legally to ensure the courts don't rule they need to pay Vayo out in the end, but if they do believe internally they need to redistribute funds, settlement might be a non-starter.

I was in a hotel in Halifax, Nova Scotia and I logged into Stars using the hotel's wifi. I got a message immediately from Stars that I wasn't allowed to play in the US. I wasn't in the US. I was in Canada. I searched using the "Whatismyip" web site and it had my location as North Carolina, USA. I'm guessing the Hotel was using a corporate intranet with their internet server based in the US.

My point is that it doesn't matter where you log in from because your geolocation may be completely wrong. If I wanted to play on Stars while I was in Canada I would have had to use a VPN and I would have risked having my account permanently locked, even though I was physically in Canada.

Right now I'm in Burma but "Whatismyip" shows me in South Korea.

That is a good point, PartyPoker has blocked my 'US location' while I've been in the UK before, no VPN or anything, but in a hotel. Didn't matter at the time, just couldn't play there and moved somewhere else.

One of the things PS does ask for when challenging whether you are in the US or not is a phone bill or something similar to prove you were in the country you say. It would actually be quite easy for Gordon Vayo to provide this sort of information if he is not lying, and thus it is very likely IMO he was in the US and is just trying it on (most would for $700k)...

That wouldn't work for me because I don't roam with my phone when I travel. I use VOIP via the internet for calls so there would be no record of phone calls. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just saying there are exceptions.

I think the absolute best way to prove he was in Canada, as I've already said, is to petition the border services for a record of him entering Canada and petition USA border services for a record of him returning to the US. Although this is probably protected information, maybe a court petition would work.

If he does indeed want to actually prove his whereabouts, yes. PS do ask for this. Would Canadian border stamp a US passport upon entry?

Passports are usually scanned at US-Canada border crossings now - stamps are pretty rare.

The complaint made for such an interesting read! Also, everybody in this thread raised lots of interesting points/angles as well Kind of a weird situation, when the overarching law guiding the parties' actions is the UIGEA - and it's a law that a lot of people don't believe best serves the interests of society, that the government is really lax about enforcing ... guess it's made for some very awkward situations as the parties attempt to comply?

With those first couple of causes of action, is Gordon alleging that Stars withheld material info about their enforcement procedures, *with the intent ... of inducing US players to use vpns (?)*, so that they could then take players money for their own personal gain? If all they're really trying to do is stay in good favour with US authorities, is it possible all those causes of action where intent would have to be shown might get dismissed ... or is that hard to get, lawyers/Howard?

Is the equity cause of action maybe more promising, if both parties may have been a bit slack with compliance, but sometimes complied? If Stars hasn't been catching non-compliance in real-time, would the Courts maybe consider it more fair for players to have the garnishment of winnings limited to those times where actual use of a vpn can be shown and not reasonably explained away by a preponderance, or whatever?

Was looking at the jurisdiction stuff too, and this case popped up with Keith Gipson in it!? https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../opinion3.html At first, it seemed like such a coincidence that the big case for jurisdiction would involve another poker player - but maybe not such a coincidence after all, if most of us don't travel much and if we do, it's not under very interesting circumstances? So for California to have jurisdiction over the case, will Gordon have to show that Stars purposefully availed themselves of the State to establish sufficient minimum contacts, or something like that? And here Stars only granted access to their services to players who could show residency outside the US. Lawyers/Howard - does Gordon have a chance if he's able to show that Stars was motivated by an interest in competing with US companies for $, since they've been lobbying for access in California?

Will the venue clause possibly be an issue as well? Was reading the case included in the complaint, and it said they're generally upheld unless it can be shown that IoM courts would be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that Gordon would be for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court - that sounds like kind of a high bar? https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_ca...1&oi=scholarr\


Guess the big thing for Vayo is the $ - but if Stars hasn't been keeping the money and their biggest concern is how they'll look to US authorities, with Vayo alleging/showing that they haven't been policing vpn use very carefully in real-time is there a chance they may wind up feeling like to show US authorities that they care about compliance with the UIGEA, their best way to do that may be to no longer accept US players on their rest of world site? Hope that isn't a possibility? That would affect a lot of people!

PS Was Canada really that unbearable?? lol ..