Followup on fight against UIGEA
US Appeals Court Action Set for July on Internet Gambling Law
April 16, 2009 - The US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has notified lawyers for the Interactive Media & Gaming Association (iMEGA) and the US Department of Justice that the Court is set to consider iMEGA’s challenge to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).
In a letter to counsel for both parties, Marcia M. Waldron, clerk for the appeals court, wrote that iMEGA v. Attorney-General USA, et al (Case Number 08-1981) has been tentatively listed on the merits on Monday, July 6 2009, in Philadelphia, PA. Oral arguments had originally been scheduled for April, but the Court has since sent iMEGA’s motion to supplement the record with news about the blocking of state lottery payments to its Merit Panel for a decision. The DOJ opposes the motion.
The Court’s letter stated: “The panel will determine whether there will be oral argument, and if so, the amount of time alloted for each side. No later than one (1) week prior to the disposition date will you be advised whether oral argument will be required, the amount of time allocated by the panel, and the specific date on which the argument will be scheduled.”
A “judgement on the merits” refers to a judgment, decision or ruling based upon the facts presented in evidence and the law applied to that evidence. A judge decides a case “on the merits” when he/she bases the decision on the fundamental issues and considers technical and procedural defenses as either inconsequential or overcome. For example: An attorney is two days late in filing a set of legal points and authorities in opposition to a motion to dismiss. Rather than dismiss the case based on this technical procedural deficiency, the judge considers the case “on the merits” as if this mistake had not occurred.
This may be significant as iMEGA submitted a motion in March to have the Court record in the case supplemented with news of “over-blocking” of state lottery transactions in New Hampshire and North Dakota by credit card companies. Despite having a clear exemption from UIGEA, the credit card companies nonetheless changed the transaction codes for the lotteries from “government” to one designating online gambling, preventing the exempted transactions from being processed. The Justice Department opposed the addition of the new information on the law’s effect, stating the new information was not submitted to the district court and that the challenge to the law was not an “exceptional case”.
“We’re very happy the Court is moving forward on this, and we’re confident the Court will consider the real-world effect of the law, regardless of the DOJ’s opposition,” said Joe Brennan Jr., iMEGA’s chairman.
This is in response to the following
US DoJ Rejects State Lottery Info Request by iMEGA
March 3, 2009 - Nicholas Bagley, attorney for the US Department of Justice, indicated he will not consent to a request by iMEGA’s legal team to inform the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals about blocked Internet sales of state lottery tickets by credit card companies. Visa and MasterCard changed the coding for online purchase of lottery tickets to the same code applied to other forms of Internet gambling, such as poker and sports wagering, despite lotteries being granted an exemption under the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).
The change has led to potentially millions in lost sales for the New Hampshire and North Dakota state lotteries, which may lead to reductions in funding for state government programs, like public education. Internet subscriptions account for 24% of all sales for the New Hampshire state lottery.
“Credit card companies are finding out when their customers sign up for the online subscription service that it is a lottery and coding their transactions as betting,” said Donna Thronson, director of communications for the North Dakota Lottery, in an interview with iGaming News.
iMEGA, in its court challenge to UIGEA (iMEGA v. Keisler, et al), had asked that information on the blocking of the Internet lottery purchases be submitted to the Federal appeals court, as evidence the law was leading to “overblocking” of transactions permitted by the new law. The Justice Department rejected the request, saying the supplemental information was “inappropriate absent unusual circumstances,” according to the letter received by iMEGA’s legal team.
“The Justice Department doesn’t think that there is anything ‘unusual’ about credit card companies blocking purchases that are clearly allowed by the very law they’re trying to defend?” asked Joe Brennan Jr., iMEGA’s chairman. “The New Hampshire lottery is losing a quarter of its sales even though they’re supposed to be protected by this law. I’m not a lawyer, but that seems like ‘unusual circumstances’ to me.”
“It’s our right and it is consistent with the rules on supplementing the record to have this information added,” said Brennan. “Since the last brief was submitted to the court (on November 14, 2008), the final regulations for UIGEA were published and have gone into effect, and as a result, state lotteries - which are exempt from the law - have been affected. The Court should, and would, want to consider this.”
Since US DoJ would not give consent, iMEGA’s legal team immediately prepared a formal motion to ask the Court’s permission to add the new information to the record. The motion is expected to be filed within 48 hours.
“I’m not surprised the DoJ does not want the Court to have this information,” Brennan said. “It’s proof of what iMEGA has said from the beginning: this law (UIGEA) is so vague the banks and credit card companies would wind up blocking every gaming transaction - even exempted ones - rather than risk violating the law. It’s no longer just a theory. It’s a fact.”
US Appeals Court Action Set for July on Internet Gambling Law
April 16, 2009 - The US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has notified lawyers for the Interactive Media & Gaming Association (iMEGA) and the US Department of Justice that the Court is set to consider iMEGA’s challenge to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).
In a letter to counsel for both parties, Marcia M. Waldron, clerk for the appeals court, wrote that iMEGA v. Attorney-General USA, et al (Case Number 08-1981) has been tentatively listed on the merits on Monday, July 6 2009, in Philadelphia, PA. Oral arguments had originally been scheduled for April, but the Court has since sent iMEGA’s motion to supplement the record with news about the blocking of state lottery payments to its Merit Panel for a decision. The DOJ opposes the motion.
The Court’s letter stated: “The panel will determine whether there will be oral argument, and if so, the amount of time alloted for each side. No later than one (1) week prior to the disposition date will you be advised whether oral argument will be required, the amount of time allocated by the panel, and the specific date on which the argument will be scheduled.”
A “judgement on the merits” refers to a judgment, decision or ruling based upon the facts presented in evidence and the law applied to that evidence. A judge decides a case “on the merits” when he/she bases the decision on the fundamental issues and considers technical and procedural defenses as either inconsequential or overcome. For example: An attorney is two days late in filing a set of legal points and authorities in opposition to a motion to dismiss. Rather than dismiss the case based on this technical procedural deficiency, the judge considers the case “on the merits” as if this mistake had not occurred.
This may be significant as iMEGA submitted a motion in March to have the Court record in the case supplemented with news of “over-blocking” of state lottery transactions in New Hampshire and North Dakota by credit card companies. Despite having a clear exemption from UIGEA, the credit card companies nonetheless changed the transaction codes for the lotteries from “government” to one designating online gambling, preventing the exempted transactions from being processed. The Justice Department opposed the addition of the new information on the law’s effect, stating the new information was not submitted to the district court and that the challenge to the law was not an “exceptional case”.
“We’re very happy the Court is moving forward on this, and we’re confident the Court will consider the real-world effect of the law, regardless of the DOJ’s opposition,” said Joe Brennan Jr., iMEGA’s chairman.
This is in response to the following
US DoJ Rejects State Lottery Info Request by iMEGA
March 3, 2009 - Nicholas Bagley, attorney for the US Department of Justice, indicated he will not consent to a request by iMEGA’s legal team to inform the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals about blocked Internet sales of state lottery tickets by credit card companies. Visa and MasterCard changed the coding for online purchase of lottery tickets to the same code applied to other forms of Internet gambling, such as poker and sports wagering, despite lotteries being granted an exemption under the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).
The change has led to potentially millions in lost sales for the New Hampshire and North Dakota state lotteries, which may lead to reductions in funding for state government programs, like public education. Internet subscriptions account for 24% of all sales for the New Hampshire state lottery.
“Credit card companies are finding out when their customers sign up for the online subscription service that it is a lottery and coding their transactions as betting,” said Donna Thronson, director of communications for the North Dakota Lottery, in an interview with iGaming News.
iMEGA, in its court challenge to UIGEA (iMEGA v. Keisler, et al), had asked that information on the blocking of the Internet lottery purchases be submitted to the Federal appeals court, as evidence the law was leading to “overblocking” of transactions permitted by the new law. The Justice Department rejected the request, saying the supplemental information was “inappropriate absent unusual circumstances,” according to the letter received by iMEGA’s legal team.
“The Justice Department doesn’t think that there is anything ‘unusual’ about credit card companies blocking purchases that are clearly allowed by the very law they’re trying to defend?” asked Joe Brennan Jr., iMEGA’s chairman. “The New Hampshire lottery is losing a quarter of its sales even though they’re supposed to be protected by this law. I’m not a lawyer, but that seems like ‘unusual circumstances’ to me.”
“It’s our right and it is consistent with the rules on supplementing the record to have this information added,” said Brennan. “Since the last brief was submitted to the court (on November 14, 2008), the final regulations for UIGEA were published and have gone into effect, and as a result, state lotteries - which are exempt from the law - have been affected. The Court should, and would, want to consider this.”
Since US DoJ would not give consent, iMEGA’s legal team immediately prepared a formal motion to ask the Court’s permission to add the new information to the record. The motion is expected to be filed within 48 hours.
“I’m not surprised the DoJ does not want the Court to have this information,” Brennan said. “It’s proof of what iMEGA has said from the beginning: this law (UIGEA) is so vague the banks and credit card companies would wind up blocking every gaming transaction - even exempted ones - rather than risk violating the law. It’s no longer just a theory. It’s a fact.”
Last edited:
