[freedumb2003]

>>I’m not sure I understand your reply, but I do understand your FRiendly tone.<<

Spread the word - many think I am a jerk (LOL).

Anyway, in the 2004-2007 range (or earlier?), a guy got into serious hock to online gamblng — something in the 100’s of thousands of dollars.

He was sued and his defense was, essentially, “my State doesn’t allow gambling therefore gambling online here is an illegal contract and cannot be enforced.” The Court bought it and he danced away scott-free.

The potential ripple effects of this worried a lot or lawmakers, so they shoved the bill in question into place so there would be less ambiguity on such transactions.

I wish I could get the particulars — my memory fades a bit — but I’ll see what my Google-fu can come up with...

[fanfan]

Spread the word - many think I am a jerk (LOL).

Some think I'm a jerk too. When we get right down to it, we are all jerks. LOL!

;-D

Meanwhile, poker is a skill based on the understanding of math and probability. Either that or gonads.

[JimWayne]

He was sued and his defense was, essentially, “my State doesn’t allow gambling therefore gambling online here is an illegal contract and cannot be enforced.” The Court bought it and he danced away scott-free.

The potential ripple effects of this worried a lot or lawmakers, so they shoved the bill in question into place so there would be less ambiguity on such transactions.

Circular logic here. They can't enforce the contract because it is illegal and since they can't enforce the contract, it needs to be made illegal!

Sounds more like the Las Vegas/Atlantic City lobby did not want online gambling.

[Ken H]

So the lawmakers were so concerned about online gambling organizations not being able to collect debts, they banned US citizens them from doing business with them?

Fedgov is big enough without this nanny state crap. It just puts more salary, pension and health care obligations on the backs of productive citizens.