It’s been more than a month since the Remote Gambling Association (RGA) issued a press release from its London offices on Warwick Street. Just a few days ago, the RGA took a stand on Pete Sessions’ HR 6663, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Clarification and Implementation Act of 2008. Sessions’ bill was introduced on July 30th and quickly picked up four co-sponsors. The European organization announced that it is officially in favor of this piece of legislation, which has virtually split the industry into two different factions.
RGA Chief Executive Clive Hawkswood commented in the organization’s press release, “We took our case directly to U.S. legislators, who have heard our message, understood the inequity of the Department of Justice’s stance, and appreciated both the unfairness in their enforcement policy and the risk to U.S. priority interests. This could be a major step in demonstrating that the rule of law and the integrity of the WTO are still important in Washington.” The RGA has filed a complaint with the European Commission charging discrimination in what online gambling is allowed by the US as a result of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). The law passed in 2006 essentially shuts many of its member organizations out of one of the largest markets in the world.
Sessions’ legislation also helps RGA members get a reprieve from US prosecution for past transgressions. Specifically, HR 6663 states, “Many European Internet gambling companies offering services not including sports betting to persons in the United States were fully listed on the London Stock Exchange, and thereby subject to high standards of transparency and scrutiny, but upon receiving clarification of United States law regarding Internet gaming through the enactment of the UIGEA, these companies closed their sites to persons in the United States.” This language puts the interests of European gaming institutions at the forefront.
Perhaps more importantly, HR 6663 states, “Continued legal jeopardy for companies that made a good faith effort to comply voluntarily with clarified United States law following the passage of the UIGEA punishes behavior that the law intended to foster and inadvertently rewards continued noncompliance by other foreign entities.” Companies such as Party Gaming and 888, which are both RGA members and traded on the London Stock Exchange, quickly pulled out of the market following the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006. Their poker rooms, Party Poker and Pacific Poker, respectively, were two of the largest in the United States at the time. Both companies have since been in a tenuous position regarding their legal status in the United States.
The RGA’s statement notes, “Unless and until the legislation is passed and comes into force, all EU operators who have ever taken business from the US market are potentially still under threat of prosecution.”
In case you’re not familiar with the RGA, the organization, “represents the world’s largest licensed and stock market-listed remote gambling companies and provides the industry with a single voice on all the issues of importance to regulators, legislators, and key decision makers around the world.” In addition to Party Gaming and 888, RGA members include Paddy Power, Victor Chandler, Betfair, Microgaming, PKR, UNIBET, William Hill, and Cryptologic.
Those who have come out in opposition to HR 6663 include the Poker Players Alliance, which has disputed the bill’s declaration that online poker’s legal status in the United States is cloudy. Representatives of Congressmen Barney Frank (D-MA) and Shelley Berkley (D-NV) have also not given the bill support. Organizations that represent online poker companies (like the RGA) have thrown their weight behind HR 6663 because of the focus on sports betting. The Republican-led bill has four Democratic co-sponsors.
