Online casino advertising in the US?

TTinCO · 12-09-2004, 02:24 AM

Didn't Bush & Co crack down on this a few months ago? I was on my way home tonight & heard a radio ad for Party on a local station.

Definitely caught me by surprise.

Fatl · 12-09-2004, 03:16 AM

Partypoker.Com or Partypoker.Net? Both owned by the same group, however there is nothing about gambling for real money on Partypoker.Net.

TTinCO · 12-09-2004, 03:20 AM

Very interesting--I don't think that they said.

Pretty damn sly of them if they are getting around it by claiming that they are advertising for a "play money only" site.

Dell Dude · 12-09-2004, 03:23 AM

I still don't understand why with all the thousands of bettors they have, Party Poker *apparently* only has two $30 bind tables. First of all, I would think they would have higher limit tables and secondly, why not have enough tables to fill the demand. I see waiting lists from here to Costa Rica for those $30 tables. Maybe I'm just missing something here. If that is the case, though, no thank you. No way I'm going to wait to play poker online.

hockeystl · 12-09-2004, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: TTinCO
Didn't Bush & Co crack down on this a few months ago? I was on my way home tonight & heard a radio ad for Party on a local station.

Definitely caught me by surprise.

I think there was a recent ruling in the Casino City case.

I just dug this up....I'm sure clev can find something a bit better.. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Casino City's Lawsuit to Declare Online Gaming Advertisements Legal Must Move Forward

On Thursday, November 18, Casino City filed a 28 page memorandum of law documenting why its lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgement to establish the First Amendment right to advertise online casinos and sportsbooks cannot be dismissed. The memorandum was filed in response to a motion by the U.S. Department of Justice to dismiss Casino City's complaint submitted on October 29th.

According to Casino City's memorandum, "The DOJ in a well orchestrated plan unabashedly set out to stifle the free speech of an entire sector of the advertising industry contrary to the U.S. Constitution. Now, faced with a challenge to its conduct, the DOJ is asking this court to effectively immunize it from judicial review."

It continues "To protect itself from the harm of self-censorship, or worse yet, prosecution, Casino City seeks pre-enforcement declaratory relief from this Court ... the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal circuit courts, recognizing the severity of content-based prohibitions that inhibit or chill expression, have ... created a body of law that clearly allows for and recognizes First Amendment pre-enforcement challenges."

According to Michael Corfman, President of Casino City, "The arguments presented by the DOJ in their motion to dismiss were seriously flawed. We anticipate a prompt decision by the district court upholding our right to bring this lawsuit against the Department of Justice." He said the memorandum of law filed by Casino City fully addresses every argument made by the DOJ. It shows Casino City has standing to bring the requested action, shows the case is ripe for judicial consideration, and shows Casino City has a valid claim for relief.

The full text of the memorandum is available online in the legal documents section of the Casino City First Amendment website at http://Online.CasinoCity.com/firstamendment/.

- November 24, 2004

hockeystl · 12-09-2004, 03:30 AM

My guess is this lawsuit has forced the DOJ to backoff for a bit until there is a judgment.

Dell Dude · 12-09-2004, 03:44 AM

Check that on the number of tables. I just looked and they have a dozen or so high limit tables but I still see waiting lists. The only way i'd deposit there is if I wanted to do an all or nothing $100 tournament for Level Two. Because they have so many people, you can win a fortune in those things.