Non-profit organization Casinomeister.com, dedicated to the practice of fair internet casino gaming and mediating disputes, issued a rare warning against an online casino provider last week. The warning follows a dispute in which the casino in question gave administration the runaround for some time.
There were a series of complaints made against BeTheDealer.com, but the main dispute came from a user who had been unsuccessfully attempting to collect his earning of some $33,500 for several months. The user had made an agreement with the casino, in which the company would pay out in installments, but failed to make more than one payment. After the casino failed to make two consecutive payments, the user filed a complaint with CasinoMeister.
BeTheDealer.com management refused to issue a statement or discuss the matter, but assure Casinomeister that contact was made with the user to come to a solution. The casino promised the payments would be made within days, and the user accepted. However, no payment was made.
Casinomeister contacted the company a second time, and were given the same response, saying that a new date for payment had been set. The player agreed to this again, however the payments were not made, despite that Casino agreeing to the money owed. BeTheDealer still owes this player $18,500.
Any contact from Casinomeister has since gone unanswered and this has gone on for weeks. The dispute has resulted in a cautionary statement from Casinomeister saying, “Warning: BeTheDealer is not paying players even after agreeing to payout terms. The casino manager repeatedly makes and breaks commitments with the end result that players wait but the payments never come. When the requests for help become inconvenient the casino people simply refuse to reply.”
“Scary moments in online casino land? Seemingly so. Either the casino cannot pay or is simply unwilling to pay this player. Is there a cash flow problem? Is there unreliable customer support? You be the judge, since they are the only ones who know.”
According to a number of media website reports, the American Gaming Association (AGA) may reconsider its policy on internet casino gambling. With the responsibility of the oversight of all forms of gambling, the AGA’s gaming policies are very prevalent to the industry. Having originally opposed online casinos, the trade association has shown signs of wavering its original stance on the issue.
Following the growing interest in internet casino gambling, AGA President Frank Fahrenkopf has suggested that the organization is supporting a decision to conduct extensive research into the industry’s pros and cons made by Nevada Representative Shelley Berkley. The AGA voted to form a study group to do just that last month.
Reports state that a top level meeting will be held to discuss AGA’s standing policy on internet gambling and consider the practical uses and negative impacts, should it be legalized. Although little has been said about who will attend the meeting, or what specifics the discussion will encompass, the industry is aware that the organization will be influenced by legislative attempts by Barney Frank, Robert Wexler, Shelley Berkely, Jim McDermott, and several others. It has been said that the meeting will cover topics like state or federal legislation and regulation over the industry.
“I think a majority would probably be supportive of some internet gambling architecture, whether or not they would support a federal solution,” said Fahrenkopf.
The overall consensus is for a state regulation to be implemented rather than federal, for reasons that State legislators have more hands-on experience with the issue, and the concern of federal US departments (like the Treasury) holding too much jurisdiction. It has not been specified whether the majority of AGA chairmen support the issue, but reports say that “some AGA members are keener than others to expand their businesses into the Internet milieu, and the current dire economic climate with declining land casino revenues may influence opinions.”
The estimated tax revenue that internet casino gambling will generate per year ranges from $8.7 to $42.8 billion in the first ten years of its legalization, a factoid that would surely persuade some to vote in its favor.
The argument remains, however, that the U.S. government has a moral responsibility to protect its citizens from the dangers of internet gambling. Guy C. Clark of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling reports, “The U.S. government’s obligation to protect its citizens from a toxic, addictive product exceeds its responsibility to please the gnomes at the WTO.
“Gambling addiction rises predictably with proximity of games and speed of play. Nothing is more proximate than a personal computer, and nothing works faster. Plus, the internet adds the deadly element of anonymity. The neighbors won’t spot you at the virtual casino. Solid citizens with no previous criminal record commit outrageous crimes when addicted to gambling.”
This argument, coming mostly from the Republican platform, in many ways contradicts the party’s idea of one taking personal responsibility for themselves, rather than relying on the government to bail them out.
According to Martin Owens, Gaming-Issues Attorney, “The U.S. stands virtually alone in its uncompromising stance against internet gambling, a position that is writ large by the UIGEA and its actions at the WTO. The attempts to ban internet gambling are misguided, unproductive, and will do nothing to protect responsible adults.”
The legal system, as well as the internet gaming community, has delivered a resounding negative response to Judge Thomas Wingate’s decision in Kentucky’s attempt to seize online casino gambling domains. The ruling has received a slew of criticisms, according to an array of media reports.
The original attempt to legally confiscate over 141 internet domains was launched in August of this year, with several commissioned state lawyers. After an accompanying hearing, Judge Wingate ruled in favor of Kentucky, allowing the state to seize a handful of domains without the informing the owners. In September, the litigation continued, in which state lawyers argued that computers located in Kentucky were, “through the use of domain names,” enabling citizens to access internet gambling sites offering slots, roulette and poker. “Cybercrimes” experts testified that the domains were gambling devices, again without informing the owners. The order was given to seize some 141 domain names in connection without criminal gambling activity.
A counter argument was then presented, in which the final ruling was made to force internet casino domain owners to block Kentucky users within 30 days to avoid having their domains seized and fined. Some outsourced lawyers felt that not enough had been done in the case, in that it did not issue fines or punitive damages to the defendants.
Speculation is circulating that the complaints follow lawyers who are stand to pay for the damages awarded to the state. “I’ve got a feeling it sent a cold shiver down the spine of plaintiff’s lawyers who have a contingency contract for getting money in the matter,” says Bill Johnson, a Frankfort attorney representing seven of the domain owners.
Kentucky governor’s office spokesperson Jay Blanton disagrees, however, having said, “…it’s too early to speculate on legal fees.”
The most criticism comes from internet casino gambling advocates – some who feel that it may come down to the defending argument being presented before the Supreme Court. iMEGA, one of the leading organizations in the defending arguments to have the case dismissed was more than just disappointed.
Joe Brennan Jr., chairman of iMEGA released a statement saying, “The decision must not be allowed to stand, because of the threat it poses to the internet as a whole.
“Judge Wingate has ignored the clear laws of his own state in coming to a decision that essentially green-lights any jurisdiction – in the US and abroad – to ignore our rights and abuse their power to do awat with competition or speech or content with which they oppose, regardless of the law. This is a dark day for internet freedom.
“What Judge Wingate has done is to create the ‘ultimate weapon’ to be used by the powerful and influential to attack content they oppose. This will enable to government to eliminate competition from differing ideas, beliefs and commerce. This decision today is where it starts, but where will it start?”
Ruch Muny, Kentucky state director for the Poker Players Alliance added his two cents to the argument, maintaining the organizations stance that poker should be omitted from the dispute altogether as it is a game of skill rather than one of chance. “In essence, Governor Beshear and Judge Wingate are denying law-abiding citizens this form of [online gambling] recreation simply because it is enjoyed on the internet. This is internet censorship by judicial fiat, plain and simple,” said Muny.
To which his colleague, PPA executive director John Pappas added, “I am certain that many of the defendants in this case intend to quickly appeal this matter. We are confident that the Kentucky Appellate Court will review the facts and overturn today’s order. At the same time, the PPA will continue its efforts to protect the rights of Kentucky citizens to play poker online.”
The discussion has extended further than those involved in the legal dispute. The public has had much to say about the ruling. Some feel as though the litigation was in response to the declining value of land casinos, which the Kentucky Governor has lobbied for a great deal this past year. Others feel that the greatest fault in Judge Wingate’s decision was the failure to address how Kentucky’s jurisdiction can reach to internet domains located outside of the state and even the country.
A blogger on ZDnet.com voiced his opinion: “I can’t see where a state court could have jurisdiction over domain names and sites not residing in its state. It is nearly impossible for them to block everyone in the state. It is more reasonable for the state’s ISP’s to block access. But even this goes in the face of the sanctity of the Internet. If it is illegal then the user should be held responsible. When a user logs on he/she should have to check a box indicating that they are not from Kentucky. This would put the responsibility where it belongs. This is a very scary precedence. This judge sounds like he is simply on a power trip.”
Web Host Industry posts, “This case should be thrown out of court for the role reason of being unconstitutional. What’s next? Are states in the Bible belt going to seize control and subsequently block adult websites, because they don’t want their residents viewing porn? If Judge Wingate allows Kentucky to take control of these domain names, we’re going to be no better than China is and how they already censor the Internet.”
The defendants who feel that the ruling was unjust will be given the opportunity to file an appeal, and Wingate has informed some that if these domains are able to accurately illustrate that their purpose is solely advertising, that they will have more clout than others. Whether or not the dispute will be taken to the Supreme Court has not yet been specified, although the speculation has been made.
With the economy in its current state, Wall Street has turned its back to the gaming industry. Major land casinos owners have watched as their stock prices declined considerably this year, showing historic lows. There has been little effect on internet casinos whose operators have seen a substantial growth in revenue.
MGM Mirage, Las Vegas Sands Corp. and International Gaming Technology have felt the effects of the economic crisis, as the stocks which were once the most expensive in the sector are now sold in the teens. The strongest blows were dealt to Ameristar Casinos Inc., Pinnacle Entertainment Inc. and Boyd Gaming Corp., the stocks of which can be traded for mere pocket change. Because shares in online casinos cannot be traded in the U.S. market, experts are advising stock traders to forget the gaming sector.
“The stocks of casino operators have been taken to the woodshed in 2008 after a multiyear bull run in the sector driven by cheap debt, mergers and acquisitions and consolidation,” says Joel Simkins, Macquarie Capital analyst. “Year to date, the eight casino operators in our coverage universe have declined 61 percent on average.”
Gaming revenues have plummeted all over the nation. Reports show that Nevada saw a 7 percent decrease in winnings this year from the year before; Atlantic City felt a 5 percent decrease, Illinois 18 percent, Colorado 10 percent, Mississippi 3 percent and finally 1 percent in Indiana. The trends are not cited in just the U.S. however, as Macau gaming revenues fell 3 percent in just September; this is the third time in history that the Chinese gambling market saw a monthly drop in revenue. Many of the gaming facilities in Macau are owned by U.S. companies like MGM Mirage, Wynn Resorts and Las Vegas Sands Corp.
As the economy and unemployment rates worsen, so does the consumer base in strip casinos. “We expect a very difficult third-quarter performance from both operators as well poor guidance,” added Simkins.
Is the economic crisis the only element responsible for the current state of land casinos? Many feel that the birth of the internet casino gambling industry will directly lead to the demise of its concrete counterpart. Internet gambling is experiencing an all time high in both revenue and demographic. With the recent smoking bans, restrictions on slots machines and tax increases many casino-goers, particularly bingo fanatics, are turning to internet gaming.
Gigi Levy of 888.com has said, “People are cutting back on leisure, but they are staying home and spending only in the low tens of pounds a month with the chance of winning some extra cash. They beauty of it is there are very low costs and a huge number of players… it is very profitable.”
It is estimated that the internet gambling market will continue to rise from $345 billion in 2007 to $433 billion in 2012. The Global Betting and Gaming Consultants reports say this is due to the need to conserve fuel, among other things.
According to GBGC Chief Executive Warwick Bartlett, “People are leaving their cars in the garage, playing online bingo or watching a match on TV and placing a bet from the comfort of an armchair. The land based businesses are going to find it hard to compete with the value on the internet and with as much as 30 percent of gambling revenue now leaving the UK and going offshore the government should take note.”
Google has reversed its anti-gambling advert policy to the UK demographic. The leading international search engine will now accept advertisements from both registered UK organizations and advertisers whose campaigns are based in the European Economic Area (EEA).
With the corporate mantra, “Don’t Be Evil,” Google had maintained that its clients were not to run ads for online casino gambling, as well as for firearms, fireworks, “miracle cures” and prostitution for ethical reasons. However, mainland Britain, Scotland and Wales will see such internet gaming ads run by the end of the year. The repeal has is not extended outside of the UK.
According the some critics, the amendment is decision to amend its ethical policies is the result of the struggling global economy. “The bottom line really is it’s a lot of money,” said Hannah Kimuiu of advertising experts Greenlight. “The gambling advertising industry is probably worth £100 million a year. A lot of advertisers have had half their budgets in the past year. They’ve got to recover this money somewhere.”
Google refutes that the decision was made to cater to what is socially acceptable in Britain. The UK allows gambling advertisements because of “local business practices.”
A Google spokesperson said, “At the time, we thought banning these adverts worldwide was the responsible thing to do and would give us a chance to review our policies. But we like to localize our policies to make sure they’re relevant to cultural and legal practices in a particular country.”
After the implementation of the UIGEA, online gambling revenues in Britain, where internet casinos are legal, skyrocketed. Because Google is responsible for nearly 70 percent of the world’s internet marketing, online casino operators have been after Google for some time to lift the ban.
Although the Queen visited Google’s headquarters near Victoria station and gave the company her assent, the decision has been deemed “irresponsible” by MPs and church leaders who feel it is immoral for gaming companies to buy “sponsored links.”
The Church of England launched an attack on Google, as the decision was made just one day after figures were released showing a 25 percent increase in those seeking help with problem gambling.
A spokesperson for the Church said, “Whatever people are searching for on Google, it probably isn’t the chance to risk developing a serious problem that could have a hugely negative effect on themselves and their family. As people are facing more financial uncertainty, the fantasy of instant wealth could become particularly attractive and the consequences of losses correspondingly serious.”
Those worried that the reversal might corrupt adolescents, however, will be happy to learn that only licensed gambling websites will be permitted to display their adverts which will be classified as “non-family safe.” That is to say, said advertisements can be blocked using a parental control.
James Cashmore of Google stated, “We’ve decided to amend our policy to allow text ads to appear against search queries related to gambling in Great Britain. We hope this will enhance the search experience for users and help advertisers connect with interested consumers. Gambling ads will automatically be classified as Non-Family Safe which means they will not show on any search where the user has applied the Safe Search Filter.”
A decision has finally been made by Kentucky judge Thomas Wingate, in the court proceedings in which the state intended to seize 141 internet casino gambling domains. Gaming website operators have been given 30 days to block access to Kentucky residents.
Should the gaming websites such as Full Tilt Poker, PokerStars, Bodog and Golden Palace comply with the state ruling and have “reasonably established to the satisfaction of the Kentucky’s Justice and Safety Cabinet or this Court that such geographical blocks are operational, [they] shall be relieved from the effects of the Seizure order and from any further proceedings in the instant civil forfeiture action.”
Should the websites fail to comply, however, operators will be given the opportunity to present their case before Wingate on November 17th. The Judge suggested that he would be willing to consider relieving a website of seizure should operators succeed to presenting the websites as advertisements.
“The counsel for Goldenpalace.com represented during the October 7 hearing that the operation of Goldenpalace.com is limited to maintaining a website and providing advertisement for third-party gambling websites,” Wingate stated during his verdict. “The court agrees that the maintenance of a website of Internet advertisement alone, without more, is not enough to constitute presence for the purposes of state court jurisdictional analysis. This, the Court recognizes that as to any of the Defendants 141 Domain Names that identifies websites which are providing information only, the Seizure Order must be appropriately rescinded and will be rescinded in due course.”
The verification process has yet to be clearly defined. “We’re still going through the ruling,” said Jennifer Brislin, communications director for the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet that filed the lawsuit. “I all these sites block access [to Kentucky residents], they’ll be free from forfeiture. Otherwise, there will be a forfeiture hearing.”
“I don’t know what the procedure for verification will be yet,” she added. “It will be more involved than a ‘Hey we blocked you’ notification.”
For the duration of the court proceedings, Wingate focused on whether Kentucky had jurisdiction over internet domain names, and whether said domains were considered illegal gambling devices. Joe Kelly, a Buffalo State business law professor stated that “a state court will almost always try to find jurisdiction.”
Following the rulings, online casinos and their domain owners have four possible actions to take: Comply with Wingate’s ruling, appeal Wingate’s ruling, present their case at the forfeiture hearing, or file against Kentucky in federal court on interstate commerce issues.
“This really should be brought up in a federal court,” Kelly opined. “They stand a much better chance arguing this in a federal court than I think in a state court.”
The Poker Players Alliance was less than ecstatic with the final ruling, as the organization shares the view that poker should be excluded from the hearings altogether under the basis that it is a game of skill.
“Clearly we believe the judge in this case got it wrong,” said John Pappas, PPA Executive Director. “First of all, we strongly disagree with Judge Wingate’s ruling that poker is not a game of skill. As demonstrated in the amicus brief we filed, skill plays an essential role in being a successful poker player. Additionally, we believe that by confirming Governor Beshear’s actions, the court has set a dangerous precedent for censorship of the internet. Today’s ruling is a big step backward for both personal rights and internet freedom.”
There have been more developments in the argument between Argentinean online casino Formoapuesta.com.ar and licensing authority Loteria Nacional, following the website’s forced closure. The news is not favorable, however, as evidence would suggest the site’s closure may be due to a potential anti-gaming legislation in the BA provincial assembly. What’s more, reports show that the province of Sante Fe is also considering a ban on internet casino gambling.
Under current provincial law, individual provinces have to legal jurisdiction to issue gambling licenses; however Federal legislation states that any internet gambling and sportsbetting is the responsibility of the National Lottery monopoly. Changes of legislation in Sante Fe and Buenos Aires could have an impact on other gaming establishments, including Vcapuestas.com.ar and ar.888.com, that cater to Argentinean users. Bwin left the market earlier this year.
While nothing is written in stone, Clr. Luis Alberto Mauri introduced a proposal to ban internet gambling in the Sante Fe province. Its enforcement would be in the hands of internet service providers, whose responsibility it would be to block Sante Fe citizens from accessing internet gambling websites, as defined by legislation. Many feel this proposal is in response to an attempt to ban internet gaming in Italy, which eventually resulted in more strict regulations.
Mauri commented, “We understand that gambling is a part of social behavior and [is] increasingly popular online, but the fact that citizens in our province have access to this method of gambling does not mean that the State should refrain from exercising control over it.”
Tex Rees, a Fair Gaming Advocate with eCOGRA will be among several panelists at the Asian Gambling Briefing in Singapore on October 21st. Rees will discuss Responsible Gambling with a number of attendees in the panel moderated by Panos Makridis, Responsible Gaming and Compliance Manager for Galaxy Entertainment.
Rees will be joined by Francisco Gaivo, Senior Legal Counsel of Melco Crown Gaming and professor Hao Zhidong, Associate Professor and Head of Department of Sociology of the University of Macau. The panel will discuss the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibilty (CSR) and Responsible Gambling, and their importance in the online casino industry. Additionally, the panel will compare the gaming policies in Asia with other nations, discuss the limits of government involvement, and how to increase operator accountability.
Rees is credited with eCOGRA’s standards for Responsible Gambling, and enforces their implementation with over 100 affiliated online casinos. She is responsible for a number of underage responsible gaming training programs with affiliated websites, and for lobbying for more strict international responsible gaming regulations in organizations like RGA, EGBA and IGC.
eCOGRA welcomed Rees to their team in 2003, as Rees was accredited with 15 years of management and customer relations experience in offline and online casinos. Prior to working for eCOGRA, she was a customer relations agent with LiveBet Online, software development. With LiveBet, the majority of clients would contact Rees to report any development or operational problems. She was responsible for the oversight of software installation and testing. Rees additionally worked with SuperBet, the first online casino in South Africa, managing 40 call centers.
Mecca Bingo Limited has joined with UK-based Barcrest Group, as a means for the organization to offer the Barcrest’s sb server-based gaming, Iconic, to its players. Using Iconic, Barcrest will stream its latest games to Mecca Bingo players. From there, each online casino will have the ability to switch out games to appeal to a certain market.
Along with the ability to host more games, Mecca Bingo will be allotted software download and verification, configuration of terminals, event report and logging and accountancy.
Mark Jepp, head of amusement operations for Mecca commented, “Mecca Bingo is deligted with the performance of Iconic sb. With Mecca staff now fully trained in the capabilities of the system, we are looking forward to maximizing our machine income as a result.”
A spokesperson for Barcrest told the public that the organization has intends to extend its reach to Continental Europe, following a successful introduction of the software in Britain. Barcrest will first launch its software in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, after joining with the Czech-based Jamp.
Barcrest offers Ooh Aah Dracula, Big Bucks, Extra Bail Bingo, Mummy Money, Neptune’s Treasure, Roulette Royale, Tooty Fruity and World Poker Tour Challenge in its game library to date, but more activities are expected as the company progresses.
Jamp Sales Manager Karel Hamr said, “We are very excited by this new venture with Iconic sb. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Barcrest Group already enjoys a reputation for great games and reliable technology so we are building on existing success.”
UK-based gaming operation William Hill Plc has announced that it is donating a portion of its bingo profits to the charity organization Breast Cancer Care all through October, in keeping with Breast Cancer Awareness month.
The online casino will host a series of Pink Ribbon bingo games as a fundraiser in which ten percent of the proceeds will be directly contributed to Breast Cancer Care. Additionally, William Hill has opted to donate 10GBP to the charity for every individual who registers from now until the end of December, using the promotional code “care,” and wagering at least 20GBP within that time frame. The proceeds will go to benefit breast cancer patients – 3,000 of which will be diagnosed in just this month alone.
Head of Corporate Fundraising at Breast Cancer Care Sarah Hill expressed her delight with the Pink Ribbon Bingo games, saying, “It is fantastic to have William Hill on board for what I believe will be an extremely successful partnership. Breast Cancer Care works very hard to make a meaningful difference to the lives of people affected by breast cancer.
“Our services ensure that people don’t have to face a breast cancer diagnosis alone and uninformed. But we still don’t reach everybody. There are many people who are struggling to come to terms with their diagnosis on their own at this very minute and that is unacceptable. That’s why we are so grateful for the support from William Hill. The crucial funds raised will help us to reach more people and to offer them the care and support they need, whenever they need it.”
