On Wednesday, California Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles) introduced online poker legislation in the state’s General Assembly. The bill, known by the nomenclature Assembly Bill (AB) 9 or the name “The Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act of 2015,” is being pushed as a bill under “urgency.” This means that, if two-thirds of the Assembly and the Senate were to vote in favor of it, AB 9 would immediately go into law rather than wait for a signature from Governor Jerry Brown. While there has been some support for the bill, two powerful factions have come out against AB 9’s passage.
The coalition of California card rooms and two Indian tribes that have banded together with the Amaya Gaming-owned PokerStars came out almost immediately against AB 9. That coalition – led by the Commerce Casino, the Hawaiian Gardens and the Bicycle Casino and joined by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians – issued a press statement yesterday that basically said AB 9 was “a rehash of previously unsuccessful proposals.”
“As a coalition, we are committed to working with legislators and our other partners in the gaming community to pass internet poker legislation in 2015,” the statement began. “We are convinced that the various interests must work together if we are to be successful in establishing a well-regulated environment and the best-in-class internet poker industry for California. Any bill that seeks to establish artificial competitive advantages for some, while denying Californians the best online poker experiences, will only serve to divide the community and will be opposed by our coalition.”
The objections of this coalition are spurred by some of the language in AB 9 that was also in previous bills. The ‘bad actor’ language, which prohibits any business or organization that offered online gaming and/or poker to U. S. residents following the enactment of the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006 from receiving a license, would keep out the coalition’s partner in PokerStars and/or Full Tilt Poker. Furthermore, AB 9 goes on to bar the usage of any property (software, customer lists, etc.) from a violator of the 2006 rule, meaning that Amaya’s purchase of PokerStars doesn’t clear them for a license.
The Poker Players Alliance also came out against the proposed California legislation on Thursday. In an interview with Dan Cypra of PocketFives, PPA Executive Director John Pappas offered their group’s opinion on AB 9. Although he stated, “Taking a position on this bill at this time isn’t necessary,” Pappas plainly stated to Cypra that “the bill has too many flaws right now to support it.”
Cypra questioned Pappas on some of the underlying regulations that are in AB 9 that the PPA had potential issues with. One of those clauses – making deposits at a physical casino or “satellite service center” – was derided by Pappas as “defeating the purpose of online poker.” “I think it’s someone’s misguided understanding on how to establish synergies between brick-and-mortar casinos and online players. There are other ways to bring people to your properties.”
As to provisions in AB 9 that would criminalize players who play on unregulated sites (offshore), Pappas said that the PPA has always been “strongly opposed” to such regulation. “I think it’s a way to deter people from playing on unlicensed sites, but that language is unnecessary because if you have a good market of licensed companies, players won’t go to the unlicensed sites.”
With the provision to shut out the California horse racing industry and a company such as Amaya, Pappas told Cypra, “We’ve always felt they should open it up to all possible participants and it shouldn’t be limited to just card rooms and tribes. The more applicants, the greater the potential for a better product.” With Amaya, Pappas stated that their exclusion is “unwise and unfair.”
AB 9 has only been public for a couple of days but it is obvious the battle lines are being drawn. While it is expected that some form of online poker legislation will pass through the California General Assembly at some point in 2015, whether it is AB 9 or another bill is the question that remains to be answered.
