[PShabi]

From 2+2, legislation forum, by poster "Hock."

Here are the highlights as I see them. [Disclaimer: Although I was a lawyer at a top DC firm for 10 years, and worked on cases involving statutory interpretation all the way up the the US Supreme Court, I am -- at least was until 15 minutes ago, haha -- not a lawyer, I am (was) a professional poker player. Plus I've only had this text in front of me for like 30 minutes. This is therefore not intended to serve as legal advice.]

1. The Act, S.5363, prohibits anyone "engaged in the business of betting or wagering" from knowingly "accept"ing VIRTUALLY ANY type of credit, electornic funds transfer, check, or other "financial transaction" associated with "unlawful Internet Gambling."

2. "Interactive Computer Services" (s. 5365(c)): Only resposnible for disabling access to a site after notice from authorities specifying exactly what needs to be shut down, including the specific "hypertext link".

3. PENALTIES:
(A) CIVIL: On top of any state remedies, federal courts have jurisdiction to enjoin any violating transactions and to prevent future violations.

(B) CRIMINAL: Fines Under Title 18 (I don't know what that says) AND/OR up to 5 years in prison.

4. "Circumvention" (S. 5367): ISPs and financial institutions can't knowingly allow transactions/activity that violate the Act IF they "control" the bets or wagers.

ANALYSIS

First, it sure seems broad with respect to the types of financial transactions covered. Not good. Much depends on exacatly what the Fed's regs say, but it has broad authority if it wants to use it.

Second, the ISP-blocking piece seems relatively tame, applying only under specific circumstances, only on the instigation of federal authorities (no self-monitoring/enforcement requirement), and only to hyperlinks specifically identified by authorities (how'd ya like to have the job of constantly finding those links and telling ISPs to shut them down?). I'd be surprised if this ended up being a real problem, but admit I know virtually nothing about the technology involved in monitoring/disabling access to a site.

Finally, what I find particularly interesting/troubling is that the Act at least arguably applies to at least professional poker players, because it applies to the "accept"ance of any of the covered financial transactions by any "person engaged in the business of betting or wagering" (as long as the bet/wager is illegal under federal/state law; query whether playing poker as we do is in fact illegal under federal/state law). "Engaged in the business of betting or wagering" is not limited to the sites, at least not in this legislation (it may have been in case law somewhere, but I doubt it). Which in turn means that simply by "ACCEPTING" a cash-out using virtually any method currently available, at least "pro" players (i.e., those "in the business of betting or wagering") could be violating a statute that carries with it substantial civil penalties and up to a 5 year jail term. All of that said, similar language was included in other proposed bills and no-one seemed to think it applied to the players, so maybe they know something about this point that I don't. Please tell me they know something I don't.