HOT OFF THE PRESSES!

Thought you might be interested in a recent decision in a case regarding internet gambling.

In a nutshell, various plaintiffs had filed purported class action lawsuits in various federal courts against MasterCard, Visa and various credit card issuers. The complaints alleged that the plaintiffs had gambled on-line, that internet gambling was illegal, that their debts therefore were illegal, and that the credit card companies violated federal law in attempting to collect the debts. The plaintiffs sought triple their money back from the credit card companies, alleging violations of the federal anti-racketeering statute, better known as "RICO."

All the cases around the country were put before a single District Court Judge in New Orleans. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaints, arguing that even if all the allegations made by plaintiffs were true, the plaintiffs did not have any claim under the law against the defendants.

On February 23, the judge issued a ruling. In a 53-page opinion, the judge granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaints in their entirety.

Of most interest to those on this board may be that the judge held that the Federal Wire Act only applied to sports betting. Therefore, he held, internet gambling not related to sports simply is not prohibited under current federal law. The judge also indicated that the Wire Act also may not prohibit sports gambling on the internet, but this was not an issue he needed to reach in the case before him.

In response to the argument that the Wire Act should be read to encompass non-sports betting on the internet, the Court stated, "Plaintiffs' argument flies in the face of the clear wording of the Wire Act and is more appropriately directed to the legislative branch than this Court."

Of course, the judge's ruling will most likely be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and it is surely possible that other federal district and circuit courts of appeal might decide such a case differently. In short, the decision should not necessarily be looked upon by anyone as the definitive word on the subject of the legality of internet gambling.

Finally, you may be interested in a particular quote from the judge's opinon:

"Although plaintiffs cry out as victims in this case, they are in a precarious position because of their own voluntary acts of internet gambling."

I'm sure most people on this board would agree!

------------------
Mark L. in NJ

Yep Mark, I do agree. Be responsible for your actions and quit blaming others for your problems. Hope the appeals court agrees.

------------------
John
Moderator Dining Forum and Entertainment, Attractions and Sightseeing Forum
john@talkvegas.com

Seems to me that this case is dead in the water, as I thought that your House of Representatives had thrown out a bill which tried to make gambling on-line for American citizens illegal. If it is not EXPRESSLY forbidden to make a bet on-line,surely that means that debts incurred with online casinos are recoverable by the Credit Card companies?

Vease:

In essence, your point is precisely the same as one of the points made by the Court in its decision.

The Wire Act was enacted in the early 1960s and, essentially, it prohibits making sports bets over phone lines. The plaintiffs argued that the legislative history of the Wire Act supported a finding that congress intended to outlaw use of the phone lines for any type of gambling whatsoever, including "internet gambling." The Court, however, recognized that criminal statutes must be strictly construed under U.S. law, and held that the plain language of the statute made only sports betting over phone lines illegal.

In addition, like you, the Court also looked at the current attempts by congress to pass internet gambling prohibitions as an indication that congress did not, itself, believe the Wire Act already prohibited internet gambling. Why pass a law to make illegal something that's already illegal?

------------------
Mark L. in NJ