Gambling News by Gambling Headquarters

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 makes unlawful the receipt by a gambling business of proceeds or monies in connection with unlawful internet gambling. The Act, which represents the first piece of Federal legislation to explicitly deal with online gambling, makes clear the US government's intention to stop the flow of funds from Americans to online gaming operators through criminal sanction. The scope of the act is broad, in so far as a "Restricted transaction" is taken to mean any transmittal of money involved with unlawful Internet gambling, whilst a "bet" is construed as including; "any instruction or information pertaining to the establishment or movement of funds by the bettor or customer in, to, or from an account with the business of betting or wagering." The Act also provides that an interactive computer service (ISP) may be asked by an Attorney or an Attorney General to remove, or disable access to any online site that violates the prohibitions contained within the Act. The site in question must reside "on a computer server that such service controls or operates." This raises the prospect that the likes of Google and Yahoo might be asked to erase from their search engines any links to websites that are seen to violate the prohibitions contained in the act. This would include links to some of the most infamous US-facing gambling portals; EOG, Casino City, theonlinewire, Major Wager and Gambling911. Prior to the passing of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, much time was spent musing over whether advertisements for online gambling constituted "aiding and abetting" within the meaning of the U.S. Criminal Code. In Casino City, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Action, Casino City, funded by a number of online sportsbooks, filed a suit against the Department Of Justice in Louisiana, claiming that they it a right under the First Amendment to carry online gambling advertisements. The Court claimed that there was no right under the First Amendment to advertise services that are illegal or to claim, or give the impression that online gambling was legal, when it clearly was not. Drakos was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 90 days on a manual labour program and three years' probation for illegally promoting gambling. County Assistant Prosecutor Melanie Smith said that under state law, a person is guilty of promoting gambling when he or she knowingly engages in conduct that "...materially aids any form of gambling activity." In a recent case brought by Nassau County Legislator Jeffrey Toback, it was claimed that Google promoted and profited from child pornography, to the degree that it formed part of the company's business model. Toback was reported as saying;

"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."

In repsonse to the charge, a Google spokesperson said that the company would remove such material from its website where it had been made aware of it. This policy is consistent with UK and US law, which states that a search engine must remove illegal material, when it has been brought to its attention.

It is not inconceivable that the scope of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, combined with a mindset that links online gambling with child pornography, will lead to U.S. Attorneys or state Attorney Generals enforcing a major clampdown on online gambling advertisements. This is likely to include requests to google and yahoo to remove links to any sites that are known to be violating the act.