All went well. All witnesses were in favor of legalizing Internet gambling. Read the tidbits on http://twitter.com/midasoracle.
–- PR about the hearing coming from the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative:
[H.R. 2266, Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act, and H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act]
Addendum:
A case of throwing good money after bad. Ever since the European Court of Justice’s judgement in Placanica, the European betting companies have poured good money down the drain, attempting to lobby the European Commission ( I will not name names). They have also spent a fortune attending conferences, where they have been told by European Law betting experts that the European betting market was going to be liberalised.
On 8 September 2009 the European Court of Justice ruled in the case of “Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and Baw International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos de Santa Casa da Misericordia de Lisboa.” (”Bwin Liga”). The ruling represented an unequivocal victory as regards the right of state monopolies to exist in the field of gambling, and, moreover, it strengthened the rights of said monopolists vis a vis online betting.
The ramifications from the European Court of Justice’s ruling in the case of “Bwin Liga” are now being felt, with Ladbrokes withdrawning its legal action against the Norwegian State concerning its recent application for a licence, after Norway said it would rely on “Bwin Liga” in its defence.
Anyone who is aware of these facts, would know that Right2Bet is a waste of both time and money. This will be confirmed further when the European Commission gets around to announcing its position (post – Bwin/Liga) vis a vis the actions that it is currently taking against a number of European States.
The game is up. The monopolists and the incumbent operators have won, and the European gambling industry now lacks any significant catalysts (hence Paddy Power’s recent decision to target Australia.)
Wall Street Journal – $$$
Guide for Bloggers and Non-Profit Organizations About Writing With Libel in Mind
Nick Jenkins:
This week, the state House of Representatives is considering a bill that would broaden the legal definition of gambling to make the company I founded, Seattle-based Betcha.com, illegal. Supported by the Washington State Gambling Commission and Sen. Margarita Prentice, SB 6103 flew through the state Senate in less than two weeks. The House of Representatives can put a stop to this latest chapter in the state government’s persecution of its own. It should.
Betcha’s story to date would bring a smile to the face of any Third World despot. A few years ago I came up with the idea of a social betting network – think Ebay meets Facebook in Las Vegas. All wagering was honor-based- bettors were not obligated to pay their losses, but if they didn’t they risked receiving negative feedback. I researched the law for months, raised capital, opened an office, and hired employees to develop a website. Thirteen days after we launched, the WSGC told me to shut down or else. When I sued for the right to operate, the WSGC enlisted authorities in Louisiana to teach me a lesson in who’s boss. Two months later, Governor Gregoire, who yesterday wagered very publicly on the Gonzaga-North Carolina game, extradited me and two Betcha employees to Louisiana as felony fugitives, even though she knew or should have known we’d never been to the Bayou State and had a lawsuit pending over the legality of the very action for which we were being extradited. Three trips to jail and sixteen months later, a state Court of Appeals ruled I was right all along- that there was “no logical basis” to believe Betcha bettors were gambling- that the WSGC’s position was contradicted by the “plain language” of the Gambling Act and its own literature- and that Betcha lacked “the essence” of gambling. The WSGC is appealing its loss to the state supreme court.
SB 6103 pushes an already gruesome story into Pulp Fiction territory, and for no reason. Betcha’s upside is extreme. According to a 1999 estimate, Americans casually wager roughly $400 billion annually amongst themselves on sports alone. Betcha would tap into that money pot as well as the billions now being bet on pop culture staples like American Idol and the Academy Awards. People will continue to wager- all 6103 would do is keep Washingtonians from capitalizing on it. No doubt some enterprising entrepreneur in a free state will steal the idea, thanking the Washington legislature all the way to NASDAQ. The tax dollars that would flow into Washington’s treasury will flow to some other state.
There’s no need for SB 6103, either. Given Betcha’s story to date, no entrepreneur considering a business that even rhymes with online gambling would stay here. Tribal interests don’t need protecting: Betcha offers none of the games their casinos offer, and since our focus is global, the customer overlap is minimal. SB 6103 is not needed to prevent an increase in bookmaking: as a person-to-person betting exchange, Betcha cuts out the bookmaker. Because Betcha’s customers may opt out of their bets (that’s the “honor-based” part), they won’t lose the rent money. And judging by the public support for the 2006 law that turned online gamblers into Class C felons – that is, none (1I2I3) – the people of Washington wouldn’t support SB 6103 if they knew about it.
If nothing else, the legislature should back off 6103 to keep from making dubious history. To my knowledge, no state legislature has ever changed the law specifically to put one of its own out of business, at least not without the urging of either the competition or the public. Lawmakers can at least wait until the judicial process runs its course. Governor Gregoire couldn’t wait. The legislature need not repeat her mistake.
Previously:
What the Washington Court of Appeals ruled:
Because losers always had the right to click a button marked “-I refuse to pay,”- there was no guarantee that any money would actually change hands, the court said. “-Accordingly, there is nothing risked, which is the essence of both the common law and statutory definition of ‘-gambling,’- ”- wrote Judge C.C. Bridgewater for the Court of Appeals Division II.
PDF file of the court’-s decision.
–
–
Midas Oracle archives on Betcha
Background on the Betcha case
Nick Jenkins’- LinkedIn profile
–
The copy of the original Betcha website:
Betcha.com
Betcha.com is the world’-s first honor-based, person-to-person betting platform. We connect people who like to bet. Betcha works like an auction site, minus the hassles and inventory. As a Betcha bettor, you: (a) offer and accept bet propositions on anything that comes to mind- (b) negotiate and counteroffer odds with would-be betting partners- then (c) settle your bets when the time comes —- shipping, handling, and trip to the post office not required. For bettors who prefer to just place their bets and be done with it, we offer Pools. As an open, honor-based betting platform, Betcha is like an auction site, Las Vegas, a marketplace of ideas, and The Golden Rule —- all rolled into one. [1]
Betting on Betcha offers several advantages over betting with a bookie or on an illegal offshore gambling site —- not the least of which is that you aren’-t limited to our odds, spreads and subject matters. And in contrast to gambling venues, we like to think Betcha does our bettors (and society) some good. About the only way Betcha resembles gambling venues is its requirement that bettors must fund their accounts to obtain betting privileges. [2]
Our founder [Nick Jenkins, a former lawyer], a non-gambler but eager social bettor (click here to view his blog, here to view bets he’-s offering), conceived of Betcha as a place to meet other people who like a friendly wager (in his case, mostly wagers on the PGA Tour). Betcha is owned by Internet Community &- Entertainment Corp., a privately-held corporation. We are located in Seattle, Washington and began matching bettors in June 2007.
[1] “-The Golden Rule”- refers to the idea that you should do unto others as you’-d have them do unto you. It is the fundamental principle behind most of the world’-s major religions. And while we aren’-t here to push religion on anyone, doing well by others is a principle we’-d like to see more of. (Read more about our social mission.)
[2] This requirement guarantees that your betting opponents actually have the money they bet. It also protects you from getting into financial trouble: unlike betting with your local bookmaker, you can never bet more than you have.
Betcha FAQ:
[…] It’-s not run by shady characters in the Caribbean. Most online betting sites are run by expats hanging out in the Caribbean. Betcha’-s location —- out in the open, Seattle, Washington. It’-s legal. Because betting on Betcha operates on the honor system, it does not meet the legal definition of gambling. No gambling —- n
o orange jump suits.
Overview:
There are two types of bets on the Betcha Platform: person-to-person bets —- the ones where bettors bet at arms length against other bettors —- and Pools, in which one host(ess) lets bettors take any of a number of positions on a given proposition.
Is this legal?
Yes. There are at least five reasons why the Betcha Platform falls outside legal [prohibitions] against gambling. While most of them are technical legalese, one isn’-t —- it isn’-t “-gambling.”- Although there are a few variations in [syntax] depending on the jurisdiction, the legal (and common sense) definition of “-gambling,”- at bottom, requires that you (1) risk (2) something of value (3) on the result of a future event beyond your control. Betting that doesn’-t have all of these elements may be betting, but it isn’-t “-gambling”- and, therefore, isn’-t illegal.
You are already familiar with some betting that isn’-t gambling. For example, if you run a race against a friend for $100, you control the outcome, so while you’-re betting, you aren’-t gambling. (Element [3] is not met.) When you make a handshake gentlemen’-s bet for no money on a football game, you are betting, but not gambling, because nothing of value is at stake. (Element [2] is not met.)
Bets on Betcha are a third type. Unlike any other betting venue on the planet, Betcha bettors always retain the right to withdraw their bets and, for up to three days, not pay their losses. (Try that at a casino.) Therefore, they are not “-risking”- anything. No “-risk”- means no “-gamble.”- (This last reason, we think, is why mayors and governors can bet with impunity on the outcomes of Super Bowls and World Series and not get themselves arrested.)
Please note: This is our opinion only. Although (1) we spent thousands of man hours analyzing this and point and related ones, (2) our analysis encompassed U.S. federal law and the law of all 50 states, and (3) we are betting our very freedom that our analysis is spot on, it isn’-t as though some Almighty Power came down from the heavens and deemed us “-legal.”- That’-s not the way the law works.
Will bettors/speculators abide by an honor system?
–
Nick Jenkins sends me the link to his earlier blog post…-
[…] This one —- an objection to the Betcha Platform from my oldest, dearest friend. Let’-s call him Cole Sparrow. (Name changed to protect the innocent.) Mr. Sparrow, not an investor, informed me over a Christmas family dinner that no one will use Betcha because they’-ll never know for sure whether their betting opponent(s) will welch on them.
Three problems. The first is that, as David Bunnell pointed out in his excellent “-The eBay Phenomenon”- (2000), they said the same thing about eBay —- and then some:
The odds against the success of this venture would have seemed substantial back in 1995 ad 1996. The market for the sale of goods over the Internet, particularly through person-to-person trading, was new, and did not enjoy widespread acceptance. Buying something of [substantial] value, often sight unseen, from a total stranger thousands of miles away did not fall into the category of [natural] acts. Further, the growth of Internet use would have to continue if the auction market hoped to gain real size. And there was no assurance that it would. (Emphasis mine.)
Suffice it to say, these concerns of 1995-96 are concerns no more. Moreover, the p2p trading market caught on despite the fact that innocent parties in fraudulent trades usually end up out something real —- their money. In the case of p2p betting, a stiffed bettor loses only something he never had in the first place —- the win on his wager.
Second, most customers think there’-s more to life than metaphysical certainty of, in effect, order fulfillment. For example, despite the fact that they may get stiffed by sellers, people still use eBay. Reason: it’-s fun. If we do it right, Betcha will be fun, too. (Indeed, we view “-fun”- as our top selling point.)
Third: there are many places on the Betcha Platform where bettors can be assured they’-ll get paid on a win. They’-re called “-Pools.”-
–
This is the rather long-promised followup to my previous articles on the Malta LGA, the ex CEO of the LGA Mario Galea, and also the Alderney Gambling Control Commission.
–
I attended the 2009 International Casino Exhibition in January this year for the purposes of speaking to the Malta Lotteries And Gaming Authority and the Alderney Gambling Control Commission.
–
My reason for seeking out the LGA were complaints at Malta-based sportsbooks Interwetten and BetChance. Betchance is covered in detail in my Betchance article here, and the Interwetten matter is described in great detail in the Interwetten report on my own site.
–
I was looking for the Alderney Commission to raise issues which I described in the AGCC article for Midas Oracle – namely, why the AGCC considers it acceptable for a licensee to revoke a player’-s winnings after the player followed all the rules to the letter.
–
Those above-mentioned articles are infinitely more interesting than anything I can say here. The visit was a monumental waste of time.
–
To give the LGA credit, they were at least available to talk, which is more than can be said for the AGCC.
–
I spoke to two members of the LGA’-s legal department, Dr. Edwina Licari and Dr. Joseph F. Borg. I had been given Dr. Licari’-s name by the “-complaints manager”-, one Frances Blenheim, who told me she would not be in attendance herself. She also said that Dr. Licari would be up to speed with the matter.
–
However, Dr. Licari knew nothing about my case. I said “-hey, your friend Frances told me to talk to you!”-, to which the lady replied that although the complaints woman had notified her that I was intending to visit, she had NOT told her anything about the case. As such, she was in no real position to say anything other than that which would have been complete guesswork.
–
So, zero out of ten for that.
–
I felt a little sorry for Dr. Licari. She looked frankly terrified during my entire visit, as if she thought I could be on the verge of doing something totally unpredictable (granted, always a possibility). This, in its turn, put me slightly on edge.
–
Never mind. Onwards to Betchance.
–
I had pepared a sheet of paper with reports from Sportsbook Review, detailing in brief the unfolding situation, namely that Betchance’-s debts were around $100,000, the silence was absolute and the Malta LGA still listed them. I read this out to Dr. Borg.
–
He told me that Betchance’-s license was under “-notice of suspension”-.
–
And that was all. Because of this notice, no comment was possible.
–
I also quoted ex-CEO Galea’-s comments, that the Betchance players were “-lying”-, and that people who questioned the LGA should watch their backs.
–
Again, no comment was possible. Galea would have to speak for himself. And, of course, Galea is no longer part of the LGA.
–
In fairness to the LGA I should add: Betchance’-s license was suspended two weeks after this, on February 2nd – see their suspended licenes page.
–
Also in fairness, Dr. Borg was a nice enough fellow, who offered to look at my own Interwetten case. We also glanced over other general matters – he pointed out that the LGA was not a court of law and could only make recommendations, and acknowledged that the Interwetten players’- ten month wait for just a response from the LGA was unacceptable.
–
However, answers there were none.
–
So then I sought out the Alderney Commission.
–
A “-States of Alderney”- stand there indeed was. Unfortunately, there were no more than two reps of the Gambling Control Commission.
–
So could I please come back later?
–
So I did. Still nobody. OK, try again, shall we?
–
Next time, I spoke to a lawyer – somewhat out of desperation, as I could see I was getting nowhere with anyone on the actual commission. I told this gentleman I wanted to discuss matters pertaining to player complaints – could he be of help?
–
He said he’-d listen, but it wasn’-t his department so he would be unlikely to be able to shed any light on my concerns.
–
So we should probably just leave it at that, eh?
–
Good idea. No sense in wasting anymore time.
–
So I departed.
–
In a fairly bad mood.
–
And that was it. No answers from anyone. The Malta LGA couldn’-t say anything, and Alderney was barely there.
–
I’-ll finish off this non-article with a customary rant – I think it’-s justified:
–
This exhibition, and others like it, is a quintessentially perfect representation of the gambling industry. It’-s like candy floss. It looks lovely, but one lick and it’-s gone – or, in this case, one flick of the duster. There is no substance. You go up to a snappy looking stand, full of smart looking people wearing nice suits, and you think: hey, this is the business. Then you ask them a question, and you discover there’-s nothing there. There isn’-t even a bit there, there is nothing. A question: nothing. Another question: nothing. Try somewhere else, and you can’-t even ask a question in the first place, because despite all the throngs of people in evidence, nobody has anything to do with anything of substance. One puff and it’-s gone. Back to nothing.
–
Which is all rather like Las Vegas, or any other gambling centre: monumental homages to nothingness, with no real entertainment other than for the masochistically inclined.
–
So, I suppose I got what I expected so shouldn’-t really complain.
–
Thank you for reading my non-report on my non-visit to the non-event that was the 2009 Earls Court International Casino Exhibition. If it bored you, think about me going to it and writing about it, and hopefully you’-ll feel a lot better.
–
My next report will be on an online poker scandal currently and painfully being played out. It is, I promise, more interesting. 
–
– “-MEPs yesterday (10 March) overwhelmingly rejected the idea of creating an EU single market for online gambling, backing member states’- right to decide on market liberalisation.”-