
U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets - cohaagen
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/u-s-now-says-all-online-gambling-illegal-not-just-sports-bets
======
cphoover
Sheldon Adelson = Big GOP money.

"Adelson's newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, was the only major
newspaper nationwide to endorse Trump.[42][43]

Adelson was also the largest donor to Trump's inaugural celebrations, with a
$5 million donation to the celebrations.[44]" \-- Wikipedia

~~~
pnw_hazor
Well it has been a felony for years in Washington state. Not really a Trump
stronghold.

"For Washington State residents, all gambling on the Internet is illegal,
including all types of sports betting. "

[https://www.wsgc.wa.gov/about-us/frequently-asked-
questions/...](https://www.wsgc.wa.gov/about-us/frequently-asked-
questions/sports-wagering-faq)

edit: quote+link

~~~
int_19h
Anti-gambling sentiment and related laws in US date back to the 19th century.
But those laws didn't discriminate between various types of gambling, it was
all illegal. Washington is one of the states that never relaxed it fully. To
this day, casinos are only legal on reservations, for example.

[https://statelaws.findlaw.com/washington-law/washington-
gamb...](https://statelaws.findlaw.com/washington-law/washington-gambling-
laws.html)

So this all is separate from the Federal Wire Act, and the even more recent
discussion on how to interpret it wrt online gambling.

~~~
pnw_hazor
Making all Internet gambling in WA a felony is a relatively recent thing.
Passed by progressives for their political allies the Indian Tribes. (WA
doesn't even get any share of the gaming proceeds.)

I know it is separate from the Federal Wire Act, but I present it as a counter
to the commenters here that seem to believe restricting online gambling is
some kind of a Trump/GOP thing.

Progressive democratic party politicians are more than happy to criminalize
online gambling when powerful interest groups that give them money ask for it.

~~~
cheriot
Great point. The real story here is regulatory capture and willing
politicians. This is what makes money in politics the enemy of every voters on
both sides.

------
coralreef
In contrast: "The Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for states to
legalize sports betting, striking down a 1992 federal law that had prohibited
most states from authorizing sports betting."

[https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/14/politics/sports-betting-
ncaa-...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/14/politics/sports-betting-ncaa-supreme-
court/index.html)

~~~
RugnirViking
Am I understanding you right? You are not currently allowed to bet on the
outcome of sporting events anywhere in the US? That's fascinating news to me

~~~
ThirdFoundation
No, you are allowed. You just aren't allowed to online.

Many states now allow sports gambling, with many more on the way.

------
ejstronge
As it may be of interest, here's the related portion of the Wire Act:

Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a
wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign
commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or
wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire
communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a
result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets
or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two
years, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 1084(a) (codifying Pub. L. No. 87-216, § 2, 75 Stat. 491 (1961)).

From the 2011 DOJ opinion that stated that only sports bets were illegal[1]

1\.
[https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/201...](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2011/09/31/state-
lotteries-opinion.pdf)

~~~
existencebox
By my most literal interpretation of this law my inlaws can now be arrested
for our march madness bracket. This seems absurd that we've let even this
level of ambiguity come to pass in a country that used to pride itself on
personal liberty; especially when the law was paid for by clear corporate
cronyism and special interests to benefit from its passage.

Can anyone legally versed tell me why I shouldn't be this incensed?

~~~
bsenftner
Well, clearly we can not infringe upon the personal liberty of the corporate
person that is paying for this law to be enacted. That would be wrong, in
today's 3/5ths equality between humans and corporate persons.

~~~
pnw_hazor
In WA it was the Indian Tribes that paid progressive Democrats to make
Internet gambling a felony.

------
the_watcher
Congress could moot all of this by simply passing (or repealing existing law)
a law that leaves the issues to the states in question. While online gambling
poses issues when not all states adopt the same rules, just treat it like
sales tax and require the vendor (and gambler) to obey the laws of the state
of the gambler. Sure, there would be vendors and gamblers who don't obey this,
but there are already gambling providers (bookies) and gamblers who aren't
following state or federal law.

~~~
Passthepeas
It has always perplexed me why there is a desire to deal with kind of thing at
the federal level in the first place. States being able to decide these things
for themselves is supposed to be what makes such a massive country stay
functional.

~~~
dmurray
Human hubris. If you're a federal lawmaker, and you know you make great laws,
why wouldn't you want all 50 states to get the benefit of your wise decision-
making?

In so far as the federal government can unilaterally expand its reach, it will
tend to do so, if just because being part of the federal government makes you
more likely to think things should be regulated at the federal level. The
authors of the Constitution knew this, and drafted it to safeguard the rights
of state governments. But "states's rights" has been a dirty word for quite
some time.

~~~
kshacker
More than hubris, the people paying you to write laws want to make sure they
pay just one place and not 50 states.

------
bovermyer
Does this affect video game loot boxes, then?

~~~
fhood
While unsavory, I feel like loot boxes are closer to a raffle than what we
typically consider gambling, and to treat them as gambling would open up a
serious gray area.

~~~
techer
How is a raffle not gambling out of interest?

~~~
jrockway
How is insurance not gambling?

~~~
Ajedi32
Insurance is the precise opposite of gambling; instead of concentrating
reward, it distributes risk.

When you buy insurance you're not betting that something bad will happen to
you, you're hedging your otherwise implicit bet that something bad _won't_
happen to you.

~~~
paulcole
You're just rephrasing it. How about:

I'm betting State Farm $12 a month my apartment will burn down before I die or
move out.

~~~
jstarfish
At the individual level, it seems a lot like gambling but insurance is not
about individuals, it's about the pool.

You and a million other people give State Farm $12 so that in the event of
fire or flood affecting a subset of the pool, there's enough money collected
to pay out to make claimants whole.

There are no "winners" in the insurance game, only losses. If they have to pay
you, you've already lost both the premiums you've already paid as well as what
people or property were damaged (gambler's fallacy at work-- your entire
neighborhood is smoldering and your family is dying painfully in the burn
ward, but here's your insurance check, you winner!).

In your case, even if your apartment does burn down, it's not like you walk
away with a windfall (unlike gambling). The adjuster is going to see to it you
end up no better off than almost-exactly how you were before the fire. You
don't "win" anything, and the meager payout you get can't always replace who
or what you lost in the process.

Everybody involved also loses if more peoples' apartments go up in flames than
there is money in reserve-- unlike with lotteries, where the payout is
distributed equally amongst the claimants.

~~~
paulcole
> At the individual level, it seems a lot like gambling but insurance is not
> about individuals, it's about the pool.

How do you think casinos and bookies work? They spread their risk by setting
lines and odds and taking a vig.

------
mimixco
Horse racing (parimutuel wagering) is specifically allowed in some states,
such as Florida. In those states, it's legal to bet online on any horse race
around the world. Twinspires (the company that owns Churchill Downs) lets you
bet online, for example:
[https://www.twinspires.com/](https://www.twinspires.com/)

~~~
razwall
In case anyone is wondering, interstate wagering on horse races is
specifically allowed in federal law by the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978,
so it's not affected by this reinterpretation of the Wire Act.

~~~
the_watcher
It's always funny (and often sad) to see the bills that have been passed
exempting random industries and companies from violating laws like this.

------
painful
What does this say about prediction markets? I wouldn't implicitly consider
them gambling, just as the financial markets are not precisely gambling.

~~~
jandrese
It's splitting hairs IMHO. Lots of things we find acceptable are basically
gambling like the stock/bond/futures markets, insurance, and prediction
markets.

Maybe a better answer is why we ban gambling at all. There are people who have
a problem with it, but maybe a better solution is to get them help to break
the cycle instead of banning it in some cases but not others.

~~~
MRD85
I live in Australia, which has very relaxed gambling laws. I can walk into
most pubs/bars in my city and find poker machines for example, as well as a
sports/horse betting facility.

There are huge social consequences to gambling. If you look at an entire
society you have some people that will have problems with it and some people
that won't. You may fall into the "won't" pile but surely society benefits if
we prevent a large number of our members from falling prey to addiction.

~~~
leetcrew
> surely society benefits if we prevent a large number of our members from
> falling prey to addiction.

how does society benefit from prohibiting people from doing things that only
hurt themselves?

~~~
EpicEng
It doesn't only hurt themselves. They are tax paying citizens and the
government has an interest in their welfare. They may have dependents. Now
Timmy can't go to college because Dad blew their savings. They get a divorce,
now mom and dad are depressed and Timmy enters a life of crime (or, less
hyperbolic; doesn't make as much taxable revenue as he could have otherwise.)

There are all sorts of laws which protect people from themselves, this is
nothing new. See; seatbelt laws for an obvious and simple example.

~~~
leetcrew
> There are all sorts of laws which protect people from themselves, this is
> nothing new. See; seatbelt laws for an obvious and simple example.

and they are all a grotesque overextension of state power. although seatbelt
laws are actually not a good example; they protect people outside your vehicle
as well.

I guess we just have different values. I don't want to be a revenue center for
the state to optimize.

~~~
ciupicri
How do seatbealts protect people outside the vehicle?

~~~
leetcrew
see int_9h's post. in the event of a crash, unrestrained passengers can hit
other people in the car or go through the windshield.

------
andrewla
Here's the updated opinion [1] referenced but not linked to in the article.
They link to the old 2011 opinion [2] that said that only sports betting was
covered.

[1]
[https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1121531/download](https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1121531/download)

[2]
[https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/201...](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2011/09/31/state-
lotteries-opinion.pdf)

------
debt
This is unbelievably beneficial to newcomers to the sports betting industry.

This position will be reversed in a couple of years, and one can be perfectly
poised to take advantage of it.

Now would be a good time to start development on a sports betting app.

------
stcredzero
I've been thinking of running a periodic contest in my MMO game. The one who
can camp out for at least a minimum time span, the furthest out in space will
win a prize. (Space, in the as-yet unimplemented design, would get deadlier by
the square of distance from home base at coordinate 0,0) Prize entrants have
to pay something like $1 and completely eschew non-cosmetic in-game purchases.

How would the law distinguish something like that from "a game of chance?"

~~~
rebuilder
Why would it?

~~~
stcredzero
The game is designed to be mostly about the skill and resourcefulness of the
players.

------
mtw
Is the Justice Department still opened during the shutdown?

------
pseingatl
The best "rule of law" that money can buy.

------
r00fus
On one side, I'm not liking this ruling as it's a weird reversal on freedoms.

On the other side, gambling acts as a one-way function on money, allowing
laundering. So reducing the ability for laundering is a good thing.

Finally, gambling can easily destroy family finances so it's good policy to
curb it on those grounds as well - requiring the gambler to visit an
establishment means potentially less nets-eggs being broken to feed a habit.

------
dmix
> A coalition backed by billionaire casino executive Sheldon Adelson lobbied
> the Justice Department

Crony capitalism 101

~~~
josteink
The best democracy money can buy.

------
diminoten
I see this as a bad thing, but I've still been able to place sports bets in
the US online for years, and I logged into ACR today and played an hour of NL
holdem, and my computer wasn't seized by the FBI.

No one has yet described the actual consequences of this, and as far as I can
tell, there haven't been any.

~~~
jarsin
Those offshore sites are scams. The scam is they take your money but if you
ever win big you will never see it payed out (deposited in a real bank account
belonging to you). You will then become one that post on forums on how you
can't get your money out, until they finally close shop and run once enough
people have been scammed.

~~~
simplecomplex
That's already illegal regardless.

~~~
Delete-Prod-Log
is ignition no longer to be accessed in the US?

------
joobus
Except for stocks, bonds, options, futures, and forex. Wall St is the only
authorized online gambling establishment.

~~~
scottlamb
Also online, state-sponsored lotteries. I'd consider lotteries (in general,
not just online) more significant in terms of taking wealth away from people
who can least afford it, and for no inherent legitimate purpose. (Lotteries
fund education, but there are better ways to do that.)

~~~
andruby
Lotteries are reverse solidarity: a lot of people pay to make 1 person rich.

Lotteries are my prime example when I want to highlight that humans don't act
rationally

~~~
LitFan
A possible explanation for why one would participate in a lottery:

What if $5 per week for the rest of their life doesn't impact an individual's
standard of living, but $10 million would drastically improve it?

Does it then make (more) sense to participate?

~~~
ska
Not in a strictly expected value sense, no. It's never going to be a rational
choice from an financial point of view (i.e. there is always something else
you can do with the $5 with better expected returns).

But if you get some other value out of it you place at least $5/wk utility on,
sure. Maybe you get more utility out if it than a movie a month, or whatever.

~~~
lozaning
I'll buy the occasional $10 scratcher, and then wait like a week to scratch it
all off. The $10 is worth getting to ponder what I'll do with my massive
windfall for that week!

Already maxing my ROTH and 401K so I figure it's like $80 a year well spent to
entertain the phantasy.

------
wpdev_63
Does this include loot boxes?

------
ianhawes
> A coalition backed by billionaire casino executive Sheldon Adelson lobbied
> the Justice Department in 2017 to reconsider its 2011 decision that cleared
> the way for states to allow online gambling.

Adelson was a major financial supporter of Trump and the GOP in 2016 vis-à-vis
the Future 45 Super PAC. His wife was recently awarded the Presidential Medal
of Freedom. This decision was bought and paid for.

~~~
joejerryronnie
All political decisions are bought and paid for, even progressive ones.

~~~
Sohcahtoa82
While true, I trust a union to be lobbying in favor of workers far more than I
trust Walmart.

------
spoiledtechie
what about that predict it website that allows you to bet on politics? Is
politics a sport?

~~~
gojomo
University of Wellington (New Zealand) 'PredictIt', like the University of
Iowa 'Iowa Electronic Markets', operates with the specific permission of the
US federal regulatory agency (CFTC) that would otherwise regulate their
tradable contracts. See for example:

[https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7047-14](https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7047-14)

~~~
defertoreptar
> to operate a not-for-profit market for event contracts, and to offer event
> contracts to U.S. persons, without registration as a designated contract
> market, foreign board of trade, or swap execution facility, and without
> registration of its operators.

My understanding is that they don't need to register as an exchange because of
this. That doesn't necessarily absolve them of being a form of gambling, does
it?

~~~
gojomo
You would have to ask a lawyer! I presume the adequately-funded academic
research projects have, and are comfortable their contract-trading won't be
prosecuted as "bets or wagers" under the Wire Act.

------
simplecomplex
Regulatory capture at its best. Gambling is allowed only for the government
and their favorite casinos.

> A coalition backed by billionaire casino executive Sheldon Adelson lobbied
> the Justice Department in 2017 to reconsider its 2011 decision that cleared
> the way for states to allow online gambling.

California made $7 billion from their lottery last year alone. But you can't
run one!

