it will have had to pass the House to get to his desk #bipartisanship

Yep. No telling what will happen. Could get tacked onto some must-pass Conference Report bill in the middle of the night, just like the UIGEA. Not saying that I know it's in the works - just saying that it is the next logical step by those who oppose internet gambling and/or who owe Adelson a favor.

Let's say banking industry starts rejecting gambling transactions. Could New Jersey bring suit against the DOJ to force them to clarify the position?Do states need to have some sort of direct harm to sue?

Let's say the banking industry starts rejecting gambling transactions, while at the same time the DoJ has taken no enforcement action at all against operators ...

If they can show damamges, a suit might have a chance It also might go the other way and they would slice their own throats.

I don't expect to see preemptive action by the operators, but that's one man's opinion

Thanks, that's exactly what i meant to ask. I'd assume banks are allowed to decline transactions as they see fit, but perhaps there are some sort of laws in place to prevent discriminatory action?

It would just seem that if banks do stop processing payments absent DOJ enforcement action, the operators throats are already slit. Unless they go the grey market banking route(Ohhh the irony lol!)

But all this is clearly putting the cart before the horse. I'm just curious.

I think the banks halting transactions during the 90 day grace period is a given

I just posted this to Facebook. I see PX makes the same point on the banking issue:

I keep hearing poker players act like this is nothing. Just like when UIGEA passed and a few months after Black Friday. Sorry, but there are at least two Achilles' heels: regulators and banks. Regulators won't simply ignore the DoJ. And, banks won't process transactions they feel are unlawful under the Wire Act, even if they meet the letter of UIGEA.

IMO articles about potential DoJ prosecutions miss the point. Sites won't run afoul of the DoJ because they won't be able to. I predict states will go to courts for relief and I hope the courts do the right thing, but we can expect Adelson to be there, too. Of course, I think some sort of organized campaign of players writing to lawmakers in affected states encouraging such action would be a good thing, but poker media and some players seem more interested in hoping everything will just turn out fine.

I think it can bring great harm. Banks were already not onboard fully. Now they may all flee. As iPoker is so liquidity-dependent, anything that takes some players out of the game is magnified greatly as fewer tables and games are available.

I also think we'll see big problems with other iGaming, like intRAstate sports betting and horse race wagering. These two industries are already complaining about credit card processing issues, and this DoJ ruling can't help.

We all know writing letters to Congress people doesnt matter, the most they will do is play lip service to us because it looks like they are listening to their constituents. It's all about special interests/lobbying and crony capitalism.

Well, I don't

Oh yeah...I don't have to reply to these kind of posts anymore. LOL.

Interestingly, the states and sites have better legal grounds to bring suit on the issue now that the DOJ has reversed their official opinion, whether or not more financial institutions start refusing transactions.

Can anyone help explain possible positive courses of actions at this time. Can states or operators bring suit against the DOJ before any action is taken? If so how long might an actual decision in court take to reach?

The last clause of your remark is what is most crucial imho. Any and all states can succeed in the courts all they may. But if the financial institutions and payment processors continue to stay away from online poker, then the rest is (illiquid) history. At best, intrastate, fragmented online poker will propagate as PA and maybe MI come online but will stay within its borders. My instinct (and hope I am wrong) is that NY legislators are now saying fudgeettaboutit until the banking has confidence in investing into this industry. NY is the big one. With this latest Wire Act development, bankers now all the more may say the risk is not worth the reward in terms of revenues etc. So Adelson will see to it that state and CA never come online. My theory is that this latest development is geared to put populace states like that on notice. It is like the former convicted governor Blagevoich once said (or thereabouts), "I have this (very valuable) Senate seat, and I am not giving it up for nothing."

In addition to ipoker player pooling, this decision affects online lottery ticket sales for multi-state lotteries; online lottery ticket sales for in-state lotteries where the systems are provided by vendors that operate from servers outside the state; online casino slots where the systems are provided by vendors that operate from servers outside the state; online casino slots where the jackpots are formed from players in multiple states; live casino slots which are networked multi-state for jackpot prize pools.

I don't think the decision will go unchallenged.

It looks like NJ is going to go before the court and try to get a declatory judgement. Word is they used the red phone to get Sen Lesniak out of retirement to make the case

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

Win or lose there will be an appeal

One way or the other, the courts will provide the interpretation, and then it would be up to the Congress to take action in either direction

The likelihood of Congress taking action in this area (see "broken govt") either way anytime soon (if at all) is nil imho. I rather take the odds on going all in with 27 offsuit in any tournament, chip leader or not. Opponents like Sheldy now certainly will want Congress to never take any action and leave things jammed up as they now are after this Wire Act reversal. Sheldy's safest, most lucrative play is this status-quo where no federal action is taken, especially now with a split Congress.

In an article posted at the intercept.com, there was an interesting mention by author or some lawyer in article who said:

"That document (aka DOJ's Wire Act Reversal Opinion on 2011 interpretation) conspicuously lacked a signature, leading some to wonder if this was even real or just a draft."

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that any legal documents lacking ANY signature(s) should be considered null and void, at least imho. I would also think this would be an excellent point of attack for the court challenges.

P.S. - I am not pessimistic in this area. I DO believe online poker is inevitable and Sheldy will ultimately lose one way or another - it is just a matter of when.

electronic signatures are not even always acceptable let alone no sig.

How is Shelder still alive. wonder how much he pays to stay alive every month

Is there anyone that can make this a "for dummies" explanation of what is going on? Are they trying to kill the interstate poker pact or whatever it is called?

Found this article that was posted about 4 hours ago. A little light at the end of the tunnel.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.onl...interview/amp/

Wire Act Guide for Dummies:

Sheldon Adelson owns a land-based gaming empire. He wants to stop his competitors, especially Caesars which is crumbling under massive debt, to successfully increase profits via online gambling in the US. Under the guise of "for the children", he wields his financial power by large donations to conservative Republicans that will return the favor by wielding their political weight towards stopping online gambling by whatever means. This reversal of the Wire Act opinion is one such favor. Previously, a bill to amend the Wire Act to explicitly include all online gambling was introduced in Congress as another such favor. That didn't make any headway, but it could still happen again.

In my opinion, this new widened interpretation of the Wire Act may actually work out eventually against Adelson as it is too far reaching. It not only puts into question online gambling, but also online lottery ticket sales and off-track horse wagering, two very powerful political entities. But until it works out in the courts or congress, it could stifle any more efforts to pass online gambling in more states.

Thank you.

At one point, Venetian Interactive held an online gambling license from Alderney.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...Gaming-License

"We are very pleased to have been granted a license in Alderney," said David Friedman, assistant to the chairman of the board, Las Vegas Sands Inc."

Sheldon Adelson, casino mogul and major GOP donor, in dire health, lawyer says

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...lawyer-n977986

They can be acute or chronic. ... Many chronic neuropathies worsen over time. Although peripheral neuropathy may be potentially debilitating, very few forms are fatal. The specific symptoms of peripheral neuropathy will vary depending on whether motor, sensory, or autonomic nerves are damaged.