Lee Rousso challenged the Washington state law under the Commerce Act. Under this Act no state can pass legislation that discriminates against a section of any industry. According to Lee Rousso the Washington legislation discriminates against the online casino industry. A person playing poker or blackjack in a brick and mortar casino is considered engaging in a legal activity.
However, the same person playing the same online casino game is considered a felon. Lee Rousso pointed out that the only persons to benefit from making online casino an unlawful act were the tribal casinos regulated by the state. This was because a competing sector was being prevented from operating.
The State of Washington was represented by Assistant Attorney General Jerry Ackerman. Ackerman told the court that online casino cannot be regulated and is therefore unsafe. Thomas Goldstein, who next took up cudgels on behalf of the online casino industry, pointed out that it was not sufficient for the state to claim that online casino cannot be regulated. They would have to prove before the court that it could not be regulated. If they were unable to prove this then it is their responsibility to provide a regulated environment for online gamblers.
Thomas Goldstein said that neither in the trial court nor in the appeals court did the state try to prove that online casino could not be regulated. Also, Thomas Goldstein provided instances of online casino being regulated in other parts of the world. He also pointed out that Washington allowed regulated online horse racing. Therefore the claims of the Assistant Attorney General did not carry weight.
The judges questioned the state Assistant Attorney General extensively. From the questions they asked it appeared that they too were not able to comprehend the reasons for discrimination between land casinos and online casinos.
"Aren’t these the same games that are played in Indian casinos?" asked Justice Jim Johnson.
Justice Gerry Alexander said the state allowed many forms of gambling, and prejudice against online casinos may be a "generational thing." Gen. Jerry Ackerman tried the argument that the state supported the Indian casinos because federal legislation required them to do so. However, the judges quashed this argument by pointing out that the state received a hefty fee from the Indian casinos.
Thomas Goldstein said that neither in the trial court nor in the appeals court did the state try to prove that online casino could not be regulated. Also, Thomas Goldstein provided instances of online casino being regulated in other parts of the world. He also pointed out that Washington allowed regulated online horse racing. Therefore the claims of the Assistant Attorney General did not carry weight.
The judges questioned the state Assistant Attorney General extensively. From the questions they asked it appeared that they too were not able to comprehend the reasons for discrimination between land casinos and online casinos.
"Aren’t these the same games that are played in Indian casinos?" asked Justice Jim Johnson.
Justice Gerry Alexander said the state allowed many forms of gambling, and prejudice against online casinos may be a "generational thing." Gen. Jerry Ackerman tried the argument that the state supported the Indian casinos because federal legislation required them to do so. However, the judges quashed this argument by pointing out that the state received a hefty fee from the Indian casinos.
Post a Comment