Big news with unknown implications at this time. Dustin Gouker of OPR reports that the "new opinion could come down this week."

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/33...nion-reversal/

https://twitter.com/DustinGouker/sta...47619298693120

https://twitter.com/DustinGouker/sta...50066469642242

EDIT: Here's another recent Twitter thread that discusses the topic.

https://twitter.com/gamblinglamb/sta...47150300094464

Here is a good summary of the situation:

https://www.playnj.com/news/doj-wire...ambling/27962/

Ive been hoping for 7 years that online poker in the usa will come back and recently things have actually been looking hopeful until this. If they stop interstate pooling, online pokers just over. Legal online poker anyway. This is awful lol. If im wrong, someone say so.

I mean, i guess we do have to wait and see what happens first,

I don't believe you're wrong, but like you say we'll know more when/if the opinion is officially revised.

Licensed statewide online poker is such a difficult sell right now for a number of reasons, and it's coming under fire from a number of powerful tribal interests as well as the typical Adelson backed lobbyists.

Steve Ruddock published a really good writeup this week on how the licensed online poker discussion in California has devolved. It's a good read and sheds light on what stakeholders of various interests are saying.

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/33...-online-poker/

Here's to hoping that the economy gets so bad in a few years that many states will be so hard up for money and needing and wanting cash, that they may be so desperate to make prostitution legal let alone online poker in order to generate more tax revenue. Like the lottery advertises - "Hey, you never know!" LOL.

We always knew this was a possibility, the the DoJ opinion was merely an enforcement position, and not law.

if the position has/does indeed change, it will, rightfully so, be up to the courts to decide if the Wire Act applies to online games

of course, the Congress could then rewrite the act accordingly

There should be no effect on activity legal under State law, whether poker or sportsbetting

The Wire Act has NEVER applied to online poker. It applies to sports betting or betting on contests. It would be a stretch to say poker or online casino is a contest, but that wouldn't matter because legal poker or sportsbetting is expressly carved out, see below.

In any event the Wire Act carves out licensed, legal online sportsbooks or pokerrooms in jurisdiction A from pooling with licensed, legal online sportsbooks or poker rooms in Jurisdiction B.

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest from a State or foreign country where betting on that sporting event or contest is legal into a State or foreign country in which such betting is legal."

That was true always, before 2011 and after 2011.

Only people with an agenda, and their mouthpieces, pretended it ever applied to poker or prohibited pooling legal licensed online gambling.

Now that States have a vested interest, and operators have gotten into the business, their legal departments and counsel might grow some balls instead of just saying "no" like they did before 2011. (It took a long time before they got the courage to decide interstate pooling of rooms was okay, hope they stick to their analysis.)

Per OPReport, done deal

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/34...e-act-opinion/

.......can they reverse that reversal ?

It doesn't establish or change law in any way

It is merely stating an enforcement position ... "We (DoJ) believe the Wire Act applies to these situations ..."

So, if/when the US Attorney sends a Cease and Desist letter to an online gambling operator stating their business is in violation of the Wire Act, that is when we should start to worry

But even at that point, it will then be up to the US Attorney to make a case, to demonstrate in court that the act applies, and that it was violated

then that case will have to survive appeal


another scenario could be that operators simply cease and desist rather than have a costly fight they might lose anyway ... when you weigh that against the cost of lobbying for legislation for state level authorization, it may be the path followed by some, or all, of the publicly held gambling companies

I am no lawyer (thank the heavens) BUT I don't see either above. The hypocrisy would be beyond. Look at what is going on with marijuana in the US - despite the fact that it is illegal at the federal level (no dispute there), states are proceeding and allowing for its commerce but no state nor its merchants within its border have been reigned in yet in defiance of federal law. IF NJ, DE, NV and PA (in terms of their online poker expansions) are though, their defense can easily use the marijuana precedent that if they are being restricted, why are you (DOJ) not doing your job of restricting what is illegal federally with other areas (like pot?

But the marijuana trade has had a huge problem in banking, due to federal anti-money laundering laws, which put banks under threat of federal enforcement action. I see this as the real threat of this reversal in the Wire Act Opinion - how will the banks react? It took a long time after passage of licensing and regulation in NJ for the banks to come around to processing player deposit and withdrawal transactions. This change in opinion by the USDOJ threatens to put the brakes on the industry if banks decide not to take the risk.

i think we have a 90 day window until NJ/NV/DE is dissolved. I assume there can be appeal to delay this timeline.

For sure they will be using this time to decide the value of resisting

I am confident saving online poker liquidity is the furthest thing from the minds of gambling operators wrt to this interpretation

I have to think Powerball and MegaMillions lotteries might have issues as well

But as someone asked you before about reversing this latest interpretation, if it can be so reversed again - wouldn't that ameliorate the payment processing-bank problem once again? If payment processing can come back, liquidity can then be on the table again for inclusion. This latest interpretation no doubt very much impedes any notion (for now) of moving forward with any interstate payment processing (or bank) for online poker transactions. That means the furthest any state can move is on development of only an intrastate online gambling legislation which is less likely now for any states like MI or NY etc. still considering it imo.

Yes it can be reversed again, as early as 2021. I remember pointing out in 2011-12 that that opinion could be reversed under the next administration, but it still was touted as the greenlight for online poker legislation, but which many now seem to think never applied anyway.

but then it can be reversed yet again, and again, and again ... it doesn't give much predictablilty to banks/processors

its all just speculation unless/until an enforcement action is brought. None will be brought in the next 90 days, but some letters might go out.

still waiting for the other shoe to drop

Not to beat a dead horse here, but lets assume for argument's sake the Wire Act was reversed in terms of interpretation again in 2021 - wouldn't your notion of enforcement (under this 2019 interpretation) be moot? P.S. - I do concur with you that predictability over time erodes for the banks/processors simply b/c of this legal "on/off" state of affairs.

And as I said:

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/34...ling-payments/

As for the DOJ reversing their position again, I think it highly unlikely. Is very unusual for the DOJ to reverse any published legal position. To do it a second time would be outlandish, and erode confidence in any DOJ published opinion. I think from here they will just let it play out in the courts. If there is a change in leadership in the Executive Branch, there may be a change in enforcement emphasis as regards online gambling, but I don't think we will see another change in published position without further federal court rulings or passage of a federal bill to amend the current law.

Rosenstein's memo suggests that there are proposed charges already. Actually, it is stated, not suggested, so I believe enforcement action is coming

if, in the intervening two years, no cases are brought under the current interpretation, then a reversal of that interpretation would make it moot.

But if a case is brought, and a conviction is won, and their appeal is lost, then the courts will have ruled, and the point of again reversing the OLC opinion would be moot

I'm sure little is certain about this, but any chance US-facing sites like Ignition Poker or America's Card Room could be affected?

Definitely very discouraging news to hear overall.

those sites already operate outside the law, so I don't see how anything changes for them lol

Perhaps, if and when there should be any enforcement out of the DOJ, they may try to set an example of these offshore sites by hunting them down all the more viciously now than prior to this latest interpretation of the Wire Act. It would only make sense to go after all these offshore sites before the stateside ones, especially when trying to repo funds for the federal treasury imho.

So the opinion explicitly states that section b still only applies to sports betting, while section a covers all gambling.

Am I wrong in thinking this means that interstate sports betting between say Nevada and New Jersey is ok, while interstate poker and gambling are not.

no money in it, that is why those sites are tolerated now

Maybe. Yes, it means interstate sports betting between jurisdictions where it is clearly legal are "ok". For other internet gambling, it's more of a wait and see how the industry reacts and what enforcement actions the DOJ takes. The DOJ may want to avoid any indictments or prosecutions other than of sites that are not state regulated as that would force the issue to go to court, where the chances are fairly strong that the court decision will go against the DOJ. It is better for the anti-gambling crowd to leave the legal arena a muddled mess than to push for a clear court interpretation. Of course, a lame duck bill to "clarify the wire act" at the end of Trump's reign is a strong possibility as well.