If this is as significant as some of you think, could previous cases be overturned? For instance the Anurag Dik**** guy that owned Party Poker payed a $300 million fine for what I believe was violating the Wire Act. I would be a bit upset to say the least if I were him right now.

I think you should add a third question. Is the PPA prepared to solicit the funds required to fight this state-by-state from potential providers? *IF* this opens the gates to jurisidctions where it is not expressly illegal, EVERY provider has a stake in establishing a poker lobbying force to keep it legal and open. I don't think anyone has an objection to finding a legal opinion/write-up to establish where this allows play, and if sites adhere to it, take $ from any entity willing to follow the law.

In turn, that money should be used ot lobby to protect and expand the poker market. I think all of us can agree, the larger the player pool, and the larger the base of providers, it is better for every one concerned. You can have your one table sites, your HUD sites, your charity sites, and cross-gambling(where legal)sites.
I understand its Christmas, but Boxing Day, the phones should burn off the hook from PPA HQ begging for money to finally fight this right. Even if it turns out to be bull**** for the lottery, its a fundraising window.....please use it.

1) Life just got a lot better for Lottomatica, Intralot and Scientific Games shareholders.
2) Life just got a lot more complicated for Caesars and other members of the commercial gaming industry with online ambitions.
3) The #DOJLetter will probably give rise to some pretty interesting legal opinions from state attorneys general on Internet gaming.
4) Will the #DOJLetter engender a near-term boom in lottery-run Internet gaming? Historically, lotteries have been very slow to innovate.

Thoughts: (1) Yesterday, Nevada approved final internet poker regulations, accepted operator applications, & going forward w/ intrastate...
(2) Nevada stated they would offer internet poker interstate if fed bill happens or to my recollection if DoJ deemed it ok to do so.
3) Today the DoJ issued a major position memo (very unusual) purportedly in response to online lottery sales in NY, Illinois.
4) DOJ: "the Wire Act does not reach interstate transmissions of wire communications that do not relate to a “sporting event or contest”"
(5) This is great news for all state lotteries wanting to offer online lotto and IMO other non-sports bet items.
(6) So what does that mean for online poker? @ppapoker issued this statement on this DOJ memo -> http://theppa.org/press-releases/2011/12/23/press-release-ppa-applauds-doj-ruling-online-poker-does-not-violate-the-wire-act-calls-on-congress-to-act-quickly-to-pass-federal-legislation-12232011/
7) Per @ppapoker ->memo "overruled the long-held position of the DOJ’s Criminal Division & found Wire Act applies only to sports betting."
8) Doubt NJ too happy but probably not surprised online sportbet singled out in DOJ letter (even citing PAPSA law).
9) Can't think yesterdays NV iPoker announcement then today's DOJ letter a coincidence.
10) In my completely non-legal opinion possibly enough for NV to go interstate poker before fed bill? Interested in what the lawyers think.

LT22, I was referring to PX's post

He has immunity and hundreds of millions, FU$, why would he really care anymore?

haha, youtube is filled with them

It looks like the DOJ is saying the Wire Act only applies to Sporting events, and sports contests,etc. It looks like this will allow states to offer intrastate online lottery and possibly online poker and casino type games. It's also likely means that states will be able to make agreements/pacts to allow interstate play between residents and online gaming businesses.

I don't think this changes much for sites currently operating. Currently no states (soon NV will) have regulated,licensed, legal online poker or casino gambling. States laws still make offering online poker illegal, in most if not all states and until a state clearly regulates online poker/gambling UIGEA and UGBA still apply.

I also think this DOJ opinion makes the chances of passing a federal bill near zero. The states no longer need the feds to pass legislation enabling them to offer intrastate online lotto,poker or casino gambling. There is no need for the feds to get involved and they will use this as their out. States have traditionally regulated gambling at the state level and states and most at the federal level will not now need or want the feds to get involved. States will be able to regulated/license online gambling if they want and in the manner in which they choose.

IMO,This is great news for moving state legislation but its the death of any federal bill ever passing.

States can't make agreements to allow interstate play just between themselves. That's pretty obviously unconstitutional. However, by that same constitutional rule, I don't think that states can ban a Nevada operator if internet gambling is legal.

Sorry I was under the impression that $300,000,000 was a lot of money to virtual anyone but I guess not.

I was mainly just wondering if anyone thought this would have implications on previous cases related to the Wire Act that have already been settled.

Just the opposite, imo: this DOJ opinion makes the chances of passing a federal bill near 100%. NV casinos don't want an open market where any state can license any entity to offer i-gambling. Likewise, Congressional conservatives don't want an unprecedented expansion of legal gambling over the Internet in the US. And this whole thing could jeopardize state lottery revenues and Indian casino compacts. The unholy Reid/Kyl alliance just got the political justification they needed to ram a bill through Congress.

My tweet: @sajeffe For the record, I never once claimed #poker to be a sport. Never. #pleaseletpokernotbeasportingeventorcontest

this, it is essentially forcing Congress to act early in 2012 or forever hold their peace EDIT: IMO

LOL. Just when it seems that this situation couldn't be any more assed backwards, this happens: "We thought that something was illegal, until we suddenly decided that we don't think it to be illegal."

Just stop by the Borgata poker room any day of the week. The sad sacks of lumpy flesh that occupy the player's seats show beyond any doubt that poker is not a sport.

http://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/...s-legal-199568


"The Department of Justice gave American online gamblers a Christmas present Friday when it said individual states had the authority to license and regulate non-sports related intrastate online gambling."

finally

Just wow. I would've given anyone 1,000-1 odds on a DOJ letter being the game changer in all of this. Never been happier to feel like an idiot. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in the next month (which it pretty much has to).

Spot on, imo

now we'll just have to wait a few years for them to determine if poker is a sporting contest.

Maybe you're right but I think it will play out differently.

NV casinos may not want an open market but the other 49 states don't really give a **** what NV wants or thinks. Congressional conservatives will see this as a clearly state matter now with no need for the federal Gov to get involved in regulating online gambling, states rights and all that. In some states lottery's and maybe Indian casinos may want to expand into online gambling by setting their own regs, not from the Feds or NV, they'll figure out if and how to adjust their casino compacts. This gives cover the the unholy Reid/Kyl alliance to not get involved as this clearly is not a federal issue but one for the states. Reid can say he tried but there is no will now in Congress for the feds to get involved in a state matter as there's no federal laws standing in the way of states to get into online gaming.

So what's keeping sites that aren't getting indicted (pokerstars) from coiming back now? Can they not just tell payment processors they're poker sites now? Or does UIGEA still play a role in that.

Can you elaborate a bit please? Do you mean things that "have to" be done within those Tax Cut negotiations?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...3&postcount=25

If this truly does mean that the Wire Act does not apply to poker, then a site like you are referring to could offer poker in any state that doesn't have other laws making it unlawful, I think.

if intrastate has no legal barriers now.. does the same apply to interstate if the states choose to allow it/participate?

Is there more than one document floating around out there? I thought the OP paper was written by Virginia Seitz but the CCT article refers to a document by Ronald Weich: