Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Online Gaming in New Jersey Remains a Crapshoot
A recent opinion issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) brought New Jersey residents a step closer to being able to participate in legal online gaming.
But for the games to begin, the state legislature must pass a bill that Gov. Chris Christie believes satisfies state constitutional requirements.
The DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel issued a surprise “memorandum opinion” addressing the application of the Wire Act (18 U.S.C. 1084) to wagering that does not relate to a “sporting event or contest.”
In the opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel (primarily responsible for providing senior legal advice to the attorney general, as well as to the president and his administration) concluded that the Wire Act's prohibition on use of interstate transmissions of wire communications involved in betting or wagering applied only to betting or wagering related to a “sporting event or contest.”
The opinion was surprising because, for nearly two decades, the Criminal Division of the DOJ has consistently taken the position that the Wire Act's prohibitions apply to all betting or wagering over the Internet, not just to wagering on sporting events or contests.
But while this opinion is significant in many respects, the landscape for legal Internet wagering in the United States remains uncertain, and there is much more to be decided including modification to the laws of individual states before widespread legal Internet wagering can become a reality in this country.
The specific question the memorandum opinion sought to address was whether the online sales of lottery tickets by New York and Illinois, to residents within their own borders, violated the Wire Act's prohibitions. The implications of the analysis adopted by the Office of Legal Counsel, however, are far broader than just the potential sale by individual states of lottery tickets over the Internet to a state's own residents. In light of the memorandum opinion's conclusion that the Wire Act's prohibitions are limited to wire transmissions associated with bets or wagers relating to “sporting events or contests,” all manner of online gaming activities unrelated to sporting events or contests (e.g., lotteries, poker, bingo, or even casino games) could potentially become legal in the United States.
But before concluding that a new age of legal Internet gaming in the United States is imminent, it is important to look at precisely what has changed and what has not changed in light of the memorandum opinion.
What Has Changed?
It appears that the DOJ will no longer take the position that all forms of gambling over the Internet are per se illegal simply because they involve the use of telephones or the Internet. The Wire Act is the only clear federal prohibition on specifically Internet gaming, which is not dependent on an underlying state-law prohibition of such gaming. From here forward, it appears that the DOJ will take the position that the Wire Act prohibits Internet wagering relating only to sporting events or contests.
It also appears DOJ will no longer attempt to dissuade states from selling lottery tickets online. In fact, if appropriate bilateral or multilateral compacts are put in place, it is conceivable that multistate sales of lottery tickets over the Internet could now be permissible.
Likewise, it seems that the DOJ will no longer attempt to dissuade individual states from pursuing the legalization, within their own borders, of other online wagering businesses unrelated to sporting events or contests.
What Has Not Changed?
Although the DOJ will apparently no longer take the position that the Wire Act applies to all forms of wagering over telephones or the Internet (i.e., to non-sports wagering), there is no indication that this new policy will affect any other federal prosecutions of Internet-based wagering arising under other federal laws. For example, the DOJ could still initiate prosecutions under the Illegal Gambling Business Act, 18 U.S.C. 1955, which, if its conditions are met, makes it a federal crime to operate a gambling business that violates the law of the state or political subdivision in which the gambling business is conducted.
In New Jersey, as in most states, the legality of most types of online gambling is, at least, uncertain. For online gaming to become a reality, New Jersey will need to legalize one or more forms of Internet gambling or there can be no certainty that any individual form of online wagering business will not draw more scrutiny or potentially even prosecutorial activity from the DOJ.
State Senator Raymond J. Lesniak (D-20th) has sponsored a bill that would authorize Internet gaming in New Jersey, but due to concerns expressed by the Christie administration regarding whether gaming outside of Atlantic City is constitutional, Sen. Lesniak agreed to reintroduce the bill in the next legislative session.
Additionally, as a practical matter, in light of the policies and procedures implemented by the credit card associations and other payment systems over enactment of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, 31 U.S.C. 5361-5367, it will still be necessary to overcome the practical difficulties of completing online financial transactions associated with legal Internet gaming before any widespread Internet gaming operations, even those conducted entirely intrastate, can be successful. Experienced legal counsel can help to navigate the myriad existing
state laws, and those being or to be considered in the future.
Conclusion
It is still possible that, given the new position in the memorandum opinion, Congress will feel compelled to step in and establish at least some consistent standards for legal Internet gambling across states. One option might, of course, be for Congress to define a uniform system of laws legalizing and regulating online gambling in all 50 states. The various bills relating to Internet gambling, which have been introduced in Congress in recent years, however, and the general history of state-level gambling laws in the United States, would suggest that any move Congress is likely to make would leave to the states quite a number of questions relating to the types and extent of online gambling permitted within individual states' borders.
The new memorandum opinion by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel could portend a new era of development in legal online betting and wagering in the United States. But absent Congress stepping into the fray to define a uniform system of laws for Internet gambling in every state, the dawning of that era in New Jersey will depend on, and largely be shaped by, developments in the treatment of Internet gambling within the state's borders.
Dennis M.P. Ehling is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Blank Rome LLP. His practice focuses on all aspects of the gaming industry. He can be reached at [email protected]. Stephen D. Schrier is a partner in the firm's Philadelphia office. He teaches gaming law at Rutgers Law School. He can be reached at [email protected]. Eric G. Fikry is an associate in the Philadelphia and Princeton, NJ, offices, concentrating on gaming and employment law. He is chairman of the Casino Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association. He can be reached at [email protected].
A recent opinion issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) brought New Jersey residents a step closer to being able to participate in legal online gaming.
But for the games to begin, the state legislature must pass a bill that Gov. Chris Christie believes satisfies state constitutional requirements.
The DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel issued a surprise “memorandum opinion” addressing the application of the Wire Act (
In the opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel (primarily responsible for providing senior legal advice to the attorney general, as well as to the president and his administration) concluded that the Wire Act's prohibition on use of interstate transmissions of wire communications involved in betting or wagering applied only to betting or wagering related to a “sporting event or contest.”
The opinion was surprising because, for nearly two decades, the Criminal Division of the DOJ has consistently taken the position that the Wire Act's prohibitions apply to all betting or wagering over the Internet, not just to wagering on sporting events or contests.
But while this opinion is significant in many respects, the landscape for legal Internet wagering in the United States remains uncertain, and there is much more to be decided including modification to the laws of individual states before widespread legal Internet wagering can become a reality in this country.
The specific question the memorandum opinion sought to address was whether the online sales of lottery tickets by
But before concluding that a new age of legal Internet gaming in the United States is imminent, it is important to look at precisely what has changed and what has not changed in light of the memorandum opinion.
What Has Changed?
It appears that the DOJ will no longer take the position that all forms of gambling over the Internet are per se illegal simply because they involve the use of telephones or the Internet. The Wire Act is the only clear federal prohibition on specifically Internet gaming, which is not dependent on an underlying state-law prohibition of such gaming. From here forward, it appears that the DOJ will take the position that the Wire Act prohibits Internet wagering relating only to sporting events or contests.
It also appears DOJ will no longer attempt to dissuade states from selling lottery tickets online. In fact, if appropriate bilateral or multilateral compacts are put in place, it is conceivable that multistate sales of lottery tickets over the Internet could now be permissible.
Likewise, it seems that the DOJ will no longer attempt to dissuade individual states from pursuing the legalization, within their own borders, of other online wagering businesses unrelated to sporting events or contests.
What Has Not Changed?
Although the DOJ will apparently no longer take the position that the Wire Act applies to all forms of wagering over telephones or the Internet (i.e., to non-sports wagering), there is no indication that this new policy will affect any other federal prosecutions of Internet-based wagering arising under other federal laws. For example, the DOJ could still initiate prosecutions under the Illegal Gambling Business Act,
In New Jersey, as in most states, the legality of most types of online gambling is, at least, uncertain. For online gaming to become a reality, New Jersey will need to legalize one or more forms of Internet gambling or there can be no certainty that any individual form of online wagering business will not draw more scrutiny or potentially even prosecutorial activity from the DOJ.
State Senator Raymond J. Lesniak (D-20th) has sponsored a bill that would authorize Internet gaming in New Jersey, but due to concerns expressed by the Christie administration regarding whether gaming outside of Atlantic City is constitutional, Sen. Lesniak agreed to reintroduce the bill in the next legislative session.
Additionally, as a practical matter, in light of the policies and procedures implemented by the credit card associations and other payment systems over enactment of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act,
state laws, and those being or to be considered in the future.
Conclusion
It is still possible that, given the new position in the memorandum opinion, Congress will feel compelled to step in and establish at least some consistent standards for legal Internet gambling across states. One option might, of course, be for Congress to define a uniform system of laws legalizing and regulating online gambling in all 50 states. The various bills relating to Internet gambling, which have been introduced in Congress in recent years, however, and the general history of state-level gambling laws in the United States, would suggest that any move Congress is likely to make would leave to the states quite a number of questions relating to the types and extent of online gambling permitted within individual states' borders.
The new memorandum opinion by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel could portend a new era of development in legal online betting and wagering in the United States. But absent Congress stepping into the fray to define a uniform system of laws for Internet gambling in every state, the dawning of that era in New Jersey will depend on, and largely be shaped by, developments in the treatment of Internet gambling within the state's borders.
Dennis M.P. Ehling is a partner in the Los Angeles office of
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?