Let’s give this another try.
On Monday, California Assemblyman Mike Gatto introduced Assembly Bill 9, the Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act of 2015 in yet another effort to get online poker legalized and regulated in the Golden State. Legislators have attempted to get the game going in the state for years, but bickering amongst the various stakeholders have held things up time and time again.
Gatto’s bill has much of the same content as the other bills that have failed, though one difference, in particular, stands out. As laid out in the bill’s summary:
This bill would require a registered player account to be established in person, and would also require that specified deposits into and withdrawals out of those accounts be made in person. In order to satisfy those in-person requirements, the bill would authorize a licensed operator to enter into an agreement for the operation of one or more satellite service centers, which would be authorized to act on behalf of, or in coordination with, the licensed operator in carrying out those in-person requirements.
So, rather than being able to just hop online and create an account, prospective players will be required to both open the account and make the initial deposit live and in the flesh. Subsequent deposits over a certain amount, as well as withdrawals, will have to be done in person, as well. In an interview with PokerNews.com, Gatto said that the goal of this policy is to cut down on underage gambling and money laundering and hopefully satisfy opponents of poker who tend to object because of those things. By extension, it seems that it would also be more difficult for problem gamblers to get into trouble, as the ability to make emotional, spur-of-the-moment deposits would be reduced. Gatto told PokerNews that the threshold for the in-person transactions has yet to be determined and could really be anywhere from $300 to $10,000.
The satellite service centers are an attempt to level the playing field somewhat, as with the in-person transaction requirement, the larger operators in more densely populated areas would be at a significant advantage. Smaller casinos in remote areas could partner up with larger casinos to accept deposits and get a piece of the action or even have satellite centers of their own to build their own operations. As Gatto told PokerNews, “A lot of people in the gold rush got rich selling shovels, and we think we have a proposal that has shovels in it now.”
Gatto’s bill also retains the old “bad actor” clause, one of the key points of disagreement in past bills. It says that operators who accepted bets from U.S. residents after December 31st, 2006 are ineligible for a license. This sort of restriction has often been thought as a way to keep the industry’s giant, PokerStars, out of the market, but since Stars was purchased by Amaya Gaming this year, it has also been thought that PokerStars could be let back into the U.S., since Amaya would be clear of bad actor issues. Gatto’s bill takes care of that, though, saying that if, “.…the service provider proposes to use covered assets, whether owned by the applicant or any other entity, that were used to accept bets….” it is still ineligible. Thus, Amaya would be out.
There is a process by which a company like Amaya could seek a waiver from the bad actor clause.
