Things that I know about Kentucky: The Kentucky Derby is held there. It was the 15th state in the Union and is a commonwealth, southern state. The capital is not, as many first think, Louisville – it’s Frankfort. And one more thing I now know about Kentucky – they don’t like online casino gambling.
Interestingly, the state of Kentucky really tried to make a point of how much they don’t like it. In particular, they tried to make that point with Full Tilt Poker. You may have already read about the fact that Kentucky had argued in court that they had the right to seize the gambling site domains owned by the online poker company because the domains were ‘gambling devices.’ Gambling devices are prohibited by law in Kentucky.
What’s even more interesting about this case is its boldness - the domains aren’t even registered in Kentucky. Nor are they registered in another state. They are registered with a company called Safenames, which happens to be a British firm. Now I know I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t quite see how Kentucky thought that they would be granted the right to seize what amount to assets that are the property of a foreign organization. But someone in Kentucky sure thought it was a good idea.
However, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled in January of this year that it wasn’t. They upheld a lower court’s decision that online gambling domains do not qualify under the definition of ‘gambling devices,’ and so they could not be seized. Sounds good, right?
Well, Full Tilt Poker wasn’t so sure. Since Kentucky appealed the decision to the Kentucky State Supreme Court, and since Safenames apparently didn’t give Full Tilt the assurances it wanted that they would not give up the domains, Full Tilt Poker decided to put an end to this full stop. The company filed with the British High Court to get an injunction preventing the names from being released. The British court ruled that Safenames cannot transfer the domains to Kentucky because a proceeding from a foreign state was not enforceable under English law.
Full Tilt Poker could have waited, though, since the Kentucky Supreme Court may very well uphold the decision made by the Court of Appeals. But Full Tilt Poker wasn’t willing to take that gamble. They laid their cards on the table. Ok, enough with the puns.
Of course, I’m left asking myself now whether or not the Kentucky Supreme Court might not feel they still have the right to seize the domain names by using the same argument as the High Court – that the injunction was done by a foreign court. I suppose in the end, it will depend on who Safenames decides to listen to. I imagine an injunction from their own country would hold more weight than a foreign country’s ruling – which is exactly what Full Tilt Poker was betting on.
Hopefully the case will stop in the Kentucky Supreme Court anyway, and we will have heard the end of it. Unless, of course, some tech wizard out there comes up with a way to block online casinos from all users in a certain state…wait, don’t anyone get any ideas out there!
By Jean Asta
Related posts:
- Portugal Given Legal Right to Ban Foreign Gambling Websites: Portugal National Lottery v Bwin
- Cardroom2 and PitBull Poker Are Dealing Themselves Out of the Online Poker Game
- Australian May Consider Overturning Ban on Online Casinos
- Off Shore Gaming Association: What’s it all About?
Tags: full tilt poker, jean asta, kentucky, online poker