Here we go...
I'm about to go watch a movie with the girlfriend, so this won't be as good as I previously imaged due to my time limitations...
The "prosecutions" arguments would be brought by the US Attorney General - which was formerly, John Ashcroft. I don't know who replaced him. Basically, here are my two arguments:
Re: "Invasion of privacy, but too bad since we're offshore..."
This is a strong argument for them, but US can counter by saying something to the extent of: You as an entity and corporation, which is formed out of the sole purpose of making money, is intentionally and flagrantly violating the privacy rights of OUR citizens, and even though you are not controlled by the laws on this national jurisdiction, we have a problem with you screwing with our citizens.
Re: "PartyPoker claims that you accepted the terms upon installation."
Did you know what you were clicking when you clicked "accept?" Was the authorization to obtain graphical copies of PartyPoker user's desktops buried in PartyPokers EULA biolerplate? Was the language of authorization comprehendable to the "average" citizen, or does it take a specialized or detailed knowledge to even READ the EULA?
Another possible argument:
PartyPoker advertises their product on United States televisions nationwide. Are they somehow accepting liability via provisions of the UCC because they are advertising to American citizens.
That's about it for now. The arguments can get more detailed and even branch off with some more time.
__________________
|