A fight on jurisdiction often happens before any factual development on the merits. I predict that is what will happen here. That is an educated guess.

You obviously know a zillion times more than I do about how VPNs operate and so on. I suggest, however, that falsifying documentary proof is a fool’s errand. Sure, it’s possible. But if you get caught doing it, you’ll almost always lose your case.

This has nothing to do with my questions. On what grounds did Pokerstars seize $700k? Cheating, for instance, would be clearly illegal at both the operator location(Isle of Man) and the player(Canada/USA).

Is using a VPN in IoM/Canada/USA illegal? Is playing poker illegal under Canada/US law? Otherwise, the only grounds for a seizure is violating Stars' TOS. If that's the case, what laws in Canada/USA make it illegal to violate a tax haven poker site's TOS?

There is no dispute that Pokerstars can ban your account for even suspecting any violations, but what gives them the authority to keep and redistribute your money absent of a crime?

What makes you think that you need to do something banned by law to have funds seized that were gained in vialotion of a service’s TOS? There is no such rule in either of the countries mentioned.

The funds don't belong to Pokerstars. If violating their TOS was legal grounds to seize funds, then they could do it for anything, like cussing in the chat.

Possibly 5.11: https://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/tos/

The prohibited jurisdictions are listed several times on their site

Yeah, and you prob know more on the legal side

What I'm wondering is if the suit is more of a ploy to get a settlement for 0<x<700k than an attempt to actually prevail on the merits given the jurisdictional issues, etc. that have been mentioned.

He might lose the case if he had bogus proof, but v possible his lawyers said "you won't prevail at trial, but right now if you don't do anything it's game over and you get $0..for $20-50k we can increase the chances you get some amount of it from 0% to 20-50%." When 250-700k is on the line, hard to imagine he wouldn't throw up the hail mary.

Please name the law that governs to whom these funds belong? Absent of one the TOS apply, unless they are unreasonable. How this is judged depends on jurisdiction, but the principle is the same almost everywhere.

Well, we can start with consumer protection laws for customer trusts...

Edit:
Jurisdiction also applies to both the provider AND the player, otherwise online poker would still be legal DUCY? See Black Friday

Do you know any casino that doesn't charge massage therapists to serve guests on the property? Keeping 50% of revenue isn't a bad deal.

Aria charges $200 for a 50 minute Thai massage. I'd be surprised if more than 10% of that stayed with the massage therapist.
If they didn't hold the players balance 'hostage' the next thread here is from somebody who complains that he got cheated on PokerStars and didn't get reimbursed because the culprit withdrew his balance before Stars could complete their investigation. Everybody with a half brain would immediately withdraw their bankroll as soon as Stars starts to ask questions. Guilty or not.

Does the Stars TOS require arbitration? If so, does Vayo strengthen his position by declining to arbitrate? This issue popped up in the Cary Katz lawsuit.

Yet the lawyer chose to make no such argument, but only a general claim that the money is Vayo's (see seventh claim for relief).

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but it can definitely be that a transaction/service is only prohibited for one of the parties involved, effectively outlawing it, but making only one party involved liable. E.g. a rule such as "it is forbidden to offer real-money poker" would outlaw poker altogether yet someone playing poker wouldn't breach that rule.

Found this part a bit weird. If he could provide proof for first two days, why not the third? What exactly did he provide?

It isn't required arbitration but Stars has to honer a judgement by the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission if someone decides to file a complaint there.

I wondered the same. It isn't mentioned in the lawsuit.

It is odd that there isn't proof of day 3. However, it'd be even stranger that he stayed in Canada to play the beginning of the tournament and chose to play only the final table in the US knowing that he could get caught and lose 6 figures.

Unless someone else played day 3 for him...

You're right to a degree. I gotta imagine the amount of money on the line would say that that other player would travel to Canada instead. It also stands to reason that if this other player's such an expert that he'd already be out of the US and playing the tournament himself.

In b4, "well the other player already busted WCOOP so he's not in Canada any longer" to which I'd say, it's way more likely that he'd sweat Gordon for a day or two than have Gordon go deep and then have Gordon come to him.

The above assertion, if true and people in the CD of California do so, may support a finding of personal jurisdiction over Rational/Stars in that District.

What did surprise me is the assertion, which I had not heard bfore, that Stars will send a cashout to a person resident in the US, (leaving NJ aside for the moment.) I found that surprising.

Does the Complaint allege that Vayo ever received cashouts to he US or requested this recent attempt to the US ?

Carry on.

It was the Phase event. Event #1.
The days weren't consecutive. It was the one Jeff Gross Twitched live and came 8th

The lawsuit makes it seem like they were consecutive for Vayo. Which is easily possible if you qualify for Phase 2 the day before it starts.

That's true. If he did bag his day 2 stack the previous day and not a few weeks before, it'd help his claim I guess.

They are very different issues. Most of the USA#1 consumer protection laws are state laws, while Black Friday was based on a federal statute. Most federal statutes do not operate extraterritorially, which is to say outside of USA#1.

The agreement calls for disputes to be heard in Isle of Man courts under Isle of Man law. The agreement doesn’t call for arbitration.

There was no federal law against offering online poker. There is and was a federal law that criminalizes a violation of state laws against offering online poker. There are federal laws against using the banking system to process transactions proceeds arising from any illegal activity.

Since Vayo insists he did not play from within the US, he is hard pressed to invoke a consumer protection law short of possibly claiming he was induced to travel to Canada to play .... (which allegations may state a valid claim, I have no idea.)

That Vayo was able to travel outside the US to play poker seems to weigh against his avoidance of any agreement to bring disputes in the IOM. ( I traveled to the IOM about a month ago from LA; the trip was boring, and requires a change of planes .... There are plenty of local counsel available, although they don't run ads on television.)

Not sure about the Lanham Act claim, although Stars apparently did use Vayo's image for marketing .... does that rise a claim ?

(If not, does Stars post tourney advertising, using Vayo, raise a claim for equitable estoppel .... giving both sides a face-saving way to settle "fairly" ?)

Stay tuned. There seems likely to be a motion to dismiss, on jurisdictional grounds among others, to be filed by the Defendant; however, I am not up on litigation processes in federal civil matters.

What I do know is that the parties may end up settling, sooner or later, the treble damages claim notwithstanding.

why did it take stars this long to make t a problem?

could be coincidence, could be planned timing only they can know for sure