Quote:
Originally Posted by amberdosh
None of those people have ever operated online poker sites so the ten year provision seems absurd and pointless. Basically what they are saying is that there is a lifetime ban for anybody who ever previously accepted online bets from US players.
Nice...
None of the current owners have ever operated online poker sites that we know of, the point of the statute seems to be to prevent a company like PokerStars from coming into IL and buying an existing riverboat in order to get an operators license and market their name, utilize their customer list, etc - the second provision prevents them from using their software.
If the goal was to exclude anyone that accepted online bets they would have included 'in violation of the laws of IL', which dates back 10 years, but they chose to use the 10 years to be consistent with the requirement for a casino license (minus the conviction) while still effectively only excluding those who accepted bets after the UIGEA was passed.
I don't like the exclusion of the best online poker company in the world from any US State, but as 'bad actor' clauses go, this one is the most likely to hold up to an Article I (bill of penalty) challenge, and NV's attempt to ban 'covered assets' has unlawful taking written all over it, but this one accomplishes the same goals with none of those risks.