It shows that the sites have no desire to comply with the laws of each state.

This is a facet of the bigger problem of lack of network locality. Say I normally live in NJ, which will approve online poker because we’re progressive like that, but happen to be in MD visiting my folks. I log in to play the Sundays. Am I bound by the laws of the place that I live or the place that I am?

Apart from that pathological example, isn’t the Wire Act, and subsequently, the UIGEA an issue of the Interstate Commerce Clause? The rhetoric is about gambling, but the basis of the law is the transmission of money for non-horse racing, non-financial market gambling purposes?

Now to get slightly off topic:

Speaking of horse racing, the Interstate Horse Racing Act (Title 15, Chapter 51) makes booking interstate horse bets a civil offense, not a criminal offense. Why the new standard of punishment for other gambling sites (or rather, for accepting money for otherwise undefined ‘unlawful Internet gambling’)? Why not just let Harrah’s sue Stars et al.?

Also, I have the fundamental misunderstanding about the necessity of the UIGEA. If the States are responsible for regulating gambling, why don’t they do what Washington has done? Aren’t the Feds stepping on the dominion of the States with this law?

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Thanks for taking up the discussion. I’m thankful to Russ for pointing out a couple of important things.

The goal for my original post was to start a discussion. At some point, hopefully soon, a revisision to current laws will be circulated in Congress, and during debate, someone will inevitiably ask, “What about underage gaming?” That man may very well be a shallow demagogue. His motives may be wholly repulsive to every concept of liberty we hold dear. Still, others will be listening to the response. They’ll want to hear something substantive and reassuring.

I think your last paragraph provides the start to a good response.

-j

It shows that the sites have no desire to comply with the laws of each state. California law has a minimum gambling age of 21. A site servicing Californians should be complying with that law.

Of course, this also means that any US-facing site should not service Washington or Utah as online gambling is illegal in those states.

The UIGEA allows for an intrastate online gambling site. While I think this could happen in the right state (say Nevada), none of the current players still servicing the US market have a chance of servicing this market (if there actually becomes one) because they have not obeyed the law today.

Russ

Good points!

Now, I don’t necessarily buy this argument 100% but the online site would say that they don’t operate in CA. They operate in Isle of Man. And Isle of Man says that 18 is cool.

Now, based on my previous posts about how absurd the “we’re on the interwebs so we only follow laws where we’re based” argument is it’s not tough to figure out why I don’t 100% buy the above argument.

But my real point is that online casinos have already demonstrated an ability to restrict gaming based on age. In fact, they tend to be pretty good about it. So what we’re really squabbling about is whether it’s 18 or 21. So if the question was how to stop underage gambling wouldn’t the most prudent thing to do be to offer a licensing and regulation model? Do you really think that any online casino wouldn’t froth at the mouth to be licensed and regulated in the US? They’d be more than willing to set the age at 21.

But the architects of the UIGEA know that which is why they didn’t put that on the table as a possibility. The emotional response to underage gambling was simply a tool for them.

So like I said, the issue isn’t doing more to stop underage gambling, it’s to communicate effectively that the age could be set at any age and that the industry has an effective way to enforce it.

You mention Jeff in making your point but he was within the age limits of the site when he won. You say that the min age to gamble in CA is 21 but the site he was playing on had a min age of 18. So his playing does not demonstrate an inability of the sites to control underage gambling. What it does demonstrate is a difference in opinion on what age.

The point being that I agree that the industry could do a lot more. Some sites require proof of identity on cashouts. All should. In fact they all should require proof of ID on deposits or account creation too.

And if those who oppose online gaming were arguing about the thoroughness of age checking I would be much more insistent that the industry sort that out. However, we shouldn’t lose site of the fact that this isn’t our opponent’s real issue.

The bottom line is that the industry is doing a good job but could do better. But everything it’s done so far has been pretty much self-regulated. They offer a service to a global market so they devise rules based on the norms. Now the US has woken up and started exerting its laws and sites will need to adjust to that. To imply that this all boils down to whether the industry has done a good enough job at checking ID’s over the last 7 years of its existence is a bit of an oversimplification.

As long as a single 16 year old can log in and play on Stars opponents of online gaming will stoke the fires of underage gambling. It’s an accusation that can never be completely avoided. Even if poker gets a carve out, opponents will be squealing in every state about underage gambling and pulling some isolated incident out of their ass to scare people.

The industry does a good job. It will continue to get better. Regulating it in the US would give it the tools to be even more effective at stopping underage gambling. Trying to address the issue on any deeper level than that (at least right now) will only pull you into a tar pit.

No.

Until they do, Greenspan’s argument is valid, and no US state (or Congress) will enact a law that allows a current online site to legally serve US customers.

Gambling in the United States has historically been an issue at the state level. That’s why Nevada has legal gambling and Utah has no legal gambling. The online sites should recognize this. They could require copies of driver’s licenses (or other documentation) before a player is allowed to play. Yes, that would be a pain in the neck for the sites–but none go through that effort.

Russ