Las Vegas Sun

April 19, 2014

Currently: 71° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

DOJ opinion ‘important day’ in efforts to legalize online gaming

Document

WASHINGTON -- A Department of Justice opinion released today declares that Internet gaming transactions are legal between states where gambling is legal.

The opinion appears to open the door for multiple states with legalized gaming to band together and create online gambling zones across state lines -- provided they don’t involve sports betting.

Advocates for legalizing online gambling have focused on getting Congress to overturn the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which made it illegal for banks to process Internet bets for prohibited forms of gaming. The 13-page opinion by DOJ Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz does not discuss how the Wire Act intersects with UIGEA.

But Richard Bronson, chairman and co-founder of California-based U.S. Digital Gaming, called the opinion a sea-change in the federal government’s approach to online gaming.

“This is a very important day,” said Bronson, whose company develops online gaming technology. “It has always been considered to be illegal under the Wire Act.”

Seitz reviewed the 1961 Wire Act to address whether state lottery operators in New York and Illinois could sell tickets online if the routers and networks processing those transactions were out of state, in places like Texas, Maryland and Nevada.

Seitz wrote: “Given that the Wire Act does not reach interstate transmissions of wire communications that do not relate to a ‘sporting event or contest,’ and that the state-run lotteries proposed by New York and Illinois do not involve sporting events or contests, we conclude that the Wire Act does not prohibit the lotteries described in these proposals.”

“Our conclusion that [the Wire Act] is limited to sports betting finds additional support in the fact that on the same day Congress enacted the Wire Act, it also passed another statute in which it expressly addressed types of gambling other than sports gambling,” Seitz wrote.

Despite opening the door to intrastate online gaming, the opinion is not a nationwide legalization of online poker and other casino games. Rather it could lead to a patchwork approach by states.

“It does not legalize anything, but what it in essence says is they will not step in and not stop online gambling,” Bronson said.

Several bills in state legislatures, from California to Iowa to New Jersey, call for legalization of online betting within state borders. Most have languished or failed. Only Nevada and Washington, D.C., have approved Internet gambling within their borders.

The new laws don’t cover a big enough swath of the online gaming population to be a game-changer. Washington, D.C., has only about 600,000 residents, and Nevada fewer than 3 million; the presumed market of American online poker players is 15 million.

Theoretically, the DOJ opinion could change that. It suggests that if more states legalize online betting, those states could process non-sports transactions across their borders, or, perhaps, link up with other online gaming operators off-shore.

The gaming industry’s main lobby in Washington, D.C. took the opinion as further incentive to change federal laws banning an industry that appears will inevitably become legal.

The DOJ opinion “validates the urgent need for federal legislation to curb what will now be a proliferation of domestic and foreign, unlicensed and unregulated gaming websites without consistent regulatory standards and safeguards against fraud, underage gambling and money laundering,” the American Gaming Association said in a statement tonight. “These federally mandated protections are vital no matter the interpretation of the Wire Act, and they must be enacted in order to avoid a patchwork quilt of state and tribal rules and regulations that would prove confusing for customers and difficult for law enforcement to manage.”

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 3 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. One can't replace the in person experience BUT on line dollars will end up taking some gaming jobs here in Vegas.

  2. This whole "legalization" game is about WHO will control the industry and the dollars: power.

    The CASINO/RESORT industry has already upped their game by shifting the ideology of the casino only experience to that of a more wholistic combined experience here in Las Vegas. Oddly, by doing this, although some jobs were lost on the casino floors, more NEWLY CREATED JOBS came into existence as an enhaustive genre of shows/entertainment, eateries, spas, amusement park concessions, and shopping boutiques and malls.

    Those fearing this online gaming will affect Las Vegas jobs are quite mistaken and their beliefs are unfounded. And with the advent of legalized online gaming, this will create an additional genre of job creation, which is welcomed.

    It bothers me that there is so much focus on underage gaming, as this seems to not account for the fact that children typically do NOT have the same money resources as their parents or caregiver adults.

    I see the legal barriers as machinations of those whose religious beliefs are against gaming, lustful entertainment, and waste. Of course, our Constitution and Bill of Rights allows for the pursuit of happiness. So I view the opposition as being from those who are zealously Churched. And we have a separation of Church and State in the United States of America.

    The one stipulation I would like to see, is that the gaming industry pays its fair share in TAX. Every state, including the Federal government need the tax revenues to maintain the law enforcement and infrastructure that supports the Gaming/Resort industry. Fair share is all that is asked and expected, yet there will likely be all manner of backroom deals struck, with a money trail in the form of payment to campaign contributions and support of politicians. This is why I would also like to see everyday citizens involved in this online gaming controversy. One never hears about such citizens being involved with the very government that should be serving them! Why?

    That's my take, and those who beg to differ are free to disagree. God Bless America!

    Blessings and Peace,
    Star

  3. "A Department of Justice opinion released today declares that Internet gaming transactions are legal between states where gambling is legal."

    And the USDOJ continues its tradition of arrogance.

    "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." -- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)