Thread/ After spending some time on the new DOJ opinion, I've noticed a serious issue with its logic. It claims UIGEA's safe harbor clause (that allows routing of information between states so long as it begins and ends in legal jurisdictions) doesn't apply...
-
Show this thread
-
... because those wagers are illegal under the Wire Act. But they're only illegal under the Wire Act if the routing of information through the internet as described in UIGEA as being lawful is illegal. Otherwise they're intrastate wagers and don't fall under the Wire Act.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
The entire basis of this being a blanket prohibition seems to hinge on this very shaky point. So much so that the opinion makes the absurd claim that since the 1961 (1961!) Wire Act doesn't use the term "unlawful Internet gambling" it backs up this conclusion. /end
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread
For a moment I almost cared about gaming law again. But I took a sip of coffee and it passed.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.