Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong
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.
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.