Search

With the burgeoning growth of esports, industry luminaries and entrepreneurs alike are attempting to create sustainable secondary markets that capitalize on the growth and success of competitive videogaming. One hotly contested issue in the arena of secondary esports markets is the legality of direct gambling on the outcome of esports matches. With recent developments in gambling law revolving around fantasy sports giants DraftKings and FanDuel, gambling on fantasy sports and direct matches has been thrust back into the public light. While gambling on sports (including esports) is currently extremely regulated and restricted, this Note advocates for the legalization of esports gambling as part of the larger arc of gambling law development in the United States. Esports, due to its nacensy, its well-developed internal checks and best practices, receptivity, global scale, and popularity presents an ideal vessel to continue the expansion and regulation of sports gambling in the United States. While extensive discussion is had on traditional sports gambling and the phenomena that is esports, academics rarely bridge the gap between the two. Rather than analyzing esports and sports gambling in separate vacuums, it is important to analyze them together; development of esports gambling would confer benefits both to esports as a whole as well as to the growth and regulation of traditional sports gambling in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Online games that started off as games of luck, skill and patience have been transformed into pay-to-win games. Players with the deepest of pockets, who can purchase any in-game asset that would advance their gameplay, win. The game is no longer a game. It is being destroyed by the exploitation of commercial opportunities and the black market sale of ingame assets. It is turning into a business, pure and simple, and is depriving dedicated, skillful, and patient players of their expected in-game experience. Moreover, players are regularly discovering and exploiting new alleys through which to engage in these Real Money Trading ("RMT") transactions to avoid any transaction costs. A number of scholars have addressed the initial question of whether income is generated when in-game assets or currency are acquired. This Note addresses the more recent development of the extensive trading of these acquired assets or currency. Specifically, this Note addresses the consequences of large scale acquisition of in-game assets and currency as a business, and not as the byproduct of recreational activity. In doing so, this note addresses possible solutions through state regulation, taxation, and industry self-regulation. As the majority of RMT transactions occur between foreign and US players, these transactions are taxable in very limited circumstances. Therefore, this Note concludes that the most plausible way to deter gold farming and RMT transactions may actually be through industry self-regulation and not through legal means. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the misconceptions regarding the U.S. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) which regulates the transferring funds in unlawful Internet gambling and having the fantasy sports exemption. It mentions that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially published that Internet gambling was unlawful under the Federal Wire Act. It also mentions that the fantasy sports contests are games of skill, and therefore not gambling.

The article focuses on the legality of the fantasy sports contests and its similarities with the illegal sports gambling in the U.S. It mentions the U.S. Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which gave the power to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to come after the payment processors for funding illegal forms of gambling. It also mentions that future prospects of the daily fantasy sports industry.

The article focuses on the legality of fantasy sports and its exemption from gambling after passage of Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) as the fantasy contests constitute gambling under both federal law. It mentions that Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) prohibits any person from operating a betting scheme in any competitive game. It also mentions that the federal Wire Act prohibits transmitting information involving wagering on any sporting event.

The article focuses on the legality of daily fantasy sports contests with the U.S. federal and state law that applies to daily fantasy sports contest. It mentions that U.S. federal laws such as Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 prohibits betting or wagering, Wire Act prohibits betting through wire communication facility and Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) authorize a betting or wagering scheme based on games in which amateur athletes participate.

Purpose -- In the present epoch, when the witch hunt for victimless criminals continues apace and even increases, it is all the more important to protect our liberties. One of the purposes of the present paper is to do so with regard to gambling. Design/methodology/approach -- We use logical arguments (reductios ad absurdum) and empirical case studies to make the case that online or any other kind of gambling in general, and poker in particular, are justified uses of our freedoms. Findings -- We find that although poker, whether online or in any other format is under attack by the powers that be, the case for such initiatives is a weak one. Originality/value -- The value of this essay is to focus attention on yet another one of our liberties that is in grave danger of being obliterated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses several legal developments involving Internet gambling in the U.S. as of November 2013, focusing on the nation's 1961 Wire Tap Act, the legal aspects of in-state lotteries, and poker-friendly legislation in American states such as Nevada and New Jersey. The U.S. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 is mentioned, along with the nation's Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Delaware Gaming Competiveness Act of 2012, and the Nevada Gaming Commission.

The article focuses on the U.S. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), which prohibits unlawful gambling and the receipt of gambling proceeds. Topics include the closure of the online poker industry in the U.S. and the court's interpretation of skill and luck as dominant factors in the legal treatment of poker.

This article addresses what appears to be a hitherto (legislatively and judicially) unresolved issue in a country where gambling is an established sub-culture -- the legality of online gambling. The existing legislation does not provide direct answers, and as a result, the courts have not been given the opportunity to answer the question directly either . The police have previously made a few statements to the press and the media, but what should we make of them? While placing bets with unauthorised bookies (including those who operate their own website or use others' websites) is clearly outlawed, leaving the offender with no excuse if caught, the situation surrounding personal online gambling is much more ambiguous -- and this is not just due to unclear legislation. The statistics on Singaporeans who gamble online may not be forthcoming, but it is a sure bet that there is a substantial -- and growing -- number . Is there really any good reason not to make the law clearer? This article not only considers the legal position, but prefaces that with a discussion of the various factors that lend online gambling a sense of allure and ostensible legitimacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Socialinių Mokslų Studijos is the property of Mykolas Romeris University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents a survey of the significant developments in the Internet gambling law in the U.S., known as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). It mentions the reason behind the delay of the compliance date of the UIGEA regulations from December 1, 2009, until June 1, 2010. It includes the Kentucky domain name case, where the Commonwealth of Kentucky sought to seize 141 domain names for alleged Internet gambling websites.

The article explores the legislative step taken by the U.S. Congress to deal with problems created by the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). It examines the theoretical foundation and prior attempts to enforce anti-Internet gambling legislation. It explores the shortcomings of the UIGEA in terms of both practical and legal concerns. It asserts the need for Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the application of the Wire Communications Act to Internet gambling. It proposes the Internet Skill Game Licensing and Control Act (ISGLCA) as the best solution to problems associated with the UIGEA.

The legalization of Internet gambling is a hotly contested issue among its various supporters and detractors, despite the topic remaining in relative obscurity within criminal law scholarship. Advocates for online poker are particularly vocal in the belief that their activity should be exempt from any form of a gambling ban. Recent academic articles, as well as current legislative proposals, have in fact advocated for an environment where Internet gambling is regulated and taxed by the federal government. This Comment is intended to balance the Internet gambling debate by presenting economic and social arguments against a legalization regime. It also seriously questions whether Internet poker is deserving of an exemption from a gambling ban. Before reaching these issues, this Comment surveys the current focal point of Internet gambling law, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, as well as other existing and proposed gambling legislation. Ultimately, this Comment concludes that clearly defining "unlawful Internet gambling" and then broadening the criminalization of the activity to reach both operators and participants is a preferable approach to proposals that call for regulation and taxation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the progressions of Internet gambling legislation in the U.S. It addresses the history of such legislation, culminating with the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and the federal government's justifications in enacting laws that attempt to limit online gambling. It examines the international effects of the regulation of gambling services, including the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute and the reaction of the U.S. to the decisions against it.

The article discusses legal opposition to Internet gambling in the U.S. The ambiguity of which jurisdiction the act of betting occurs in during Internet gambling makes verifying violations of state gambling laws difficult. The author suggests the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act lacks enforcement mechanisms and defines set-asides for some forms of gambling. The author comments that the Bible has no passages denouncing gambling and that gambling was tolerated by medieval religions. He argues that gambling does not cause enough unique harm to justify legislation or being labelled as a vice. Michael Froomkin, a professor at the University of Miami, referred to the power of the Internet to put legal power into the hands of individuals as regulatory arbitrage.

The article discusses the legal ramifications of whether poker counts as a game of skill or chance. In a suit brought by the gambling club the Joker Club, North Carolina courts ruled that because chance was a dominant factor of the game, poker qualified as a game of skill and was therefore illegal under state gambling statutes. Derek Kelly, operator of the gambling company Gutshot Ltd., was arrested on gambling charges in Britain but argued the British Gaming Act of 1968, which prohibits games of chance, did not apply to poker. French legislation determined that poker is a game of chance if played for money. Canadian law is ambiguous regarding the legality of Internet poker games but does allow advertising of Internet poker.

This article presents a summary of the U.S. Unlawful Internet Gambling Act of 2006 that was passed by the Congress just before the election period recess. The author also presents his detailed analysis and opinion of the law. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg stated that the Senate-House Conference Committee hadn't seen the final language of the bill before its passage. Congress passed such a law because it found that Internet gambling is a growing problem for banks and credit card companies. It also found that new mechanisms were necessary to enforce gambling laws on the Internet.

The article reports that the Italian Budget Law of 2006 has introduced strict rules that have the goal of fortifying, among other things, the ways for fighting illegal Web sites offering casino games contrary to Italian laws. These provisions demonstrate the willingness of Italian authorities to combat the tide of Web sites providing casino games which are prohibited by Italian law. However, it should be noted that the illicit games under Italian law are games such as poker, including virtual poker tables and tournaments, blackjack, roulette, and chemin de fer.

Advocates a more principled and less self-interested basis for regulation of gambling and investing in the U.S. Similarities between certain gambling activities and investment activities in the country; Comparison of the regulatory environments for gambling and investing; Differences in the fundamental policies behind federal regulation of online investing and online gambling.

This article discusses the U.S. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The article notes that, in month the Act was signed by U.S. President George W. Bush, internet gambling sites received a 40 percent increase in U.S.-based traffic.The article speculates that the law may not actually deter internet gambling among U.S. users, and may, in fact, spark more internet gambling. The article notes that overseas gaming websites have not withdrawn from the U.S. market since the law was enacted, nor have many U.S. companies started banning their employees from visiting internet gambling websites.

This article discusses gambling law in the U.S. during 2007. The author decries U.S. Senator Bill Frist for pushing through the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 in the latter hours of the 2006 Congressional session. The author notes that Frist attached his internet gambling bill to an unrelated bill dealing with port security, earning scathing criticism from the author. The law makes illegal all internet gambling, including internet poker, by disallowing banks from accepting money transfers from people participating in internet gambling.

This article discusses internet gambling laws in the U.S. during 2007. The article notes that internet poker was made illegal in the U.S. during 2006, and that people such as Sportingbet.com website operator Peter Dicks have been arrested for operating illegal internet poker websites. BetOnSports.com chief executive David Carruthers has also been arrested for violation of internet gambling laws, and the U.S. government has seized the funds of hundreds of U.S. gamblers who had money in accounts with BetOnSports.

The article presents the bill S.S.B. No. 6613 or the law against Internet gambling in the state of Washington. The Washington State Gambling Commission made this law to clarify that Internet gambling is illegal including operation of Internet site or facilitating Internet gambling in any way. Washington is the only state to make it a crime to bet online. Making Internet gambling a felony allows religious conservatives, opponents of Indian gaming and anti-gambling activists to make a strong statement.