Home / Poker News October 2008 / Domain names can be seized - rules Kentucky Court
Domain names can be seized - rules Kentucky Court
Posted by: James Carter. - Thu, 2008-10-23 12:02
Everyone even remotely connected to the poker industry knows about the attempt on the part of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to seize some of the domain names tied to online poker rooms and csinos which still accept US players. There are 141 internet gambling and gambling related sites targeted by the State of Kentucky on account of the fact that they infringe on local laws regarding online gambling.
Ever since news regarding the attempt first surfaced, a whole bunch of different opinions have been expressed regarding Gov. Beshear’s move to safeguard Kentucky’s traditional horse racing venues and the gambling associated with them. Whether or not online poker and gambling interferes with the revenue generated by gambling on horse racing is not clear, and neither is whether or not Kentucky has an applicable law in place which concerns online gambling in any shape or form. The question of whether or not a state or any other such entity can seize an internet domain name under any circumstances has recently been addressed by Kentucky Circuit Court Judge Thomas D. Wingate.
In a ruling last Thursday, the judge affirmed that the Commonwealth of Kentucky could indeed go ahead with the seizure of the 141 internet domains, some of which belong to the most popular poker rooms like
PokerStars,
Full Tilt Poker,
Absolute Poker and
Ultimate Bet.
The judge has dismissed all arguments the legal representatives of the sites in question had put forth, including those of the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association, the PPA, the Internet Commerce Association and the Interactive Gaming Council.
Internet domain names have been qualified by the judge as “devices” used in gambling, and as such, illegal in the State of Kentucky.
The argument that the PPA had brought up in regards to poker not being a game of chance but rather one of skill, was also entirely dismissed on account of the fact that Kentucky law only mentions “an element of chance” and makes no reference to how big a proportion the chance element needs to be.
The argument that Kentucky had no jurisdiction over domain names because they were hosted or owned elsewhere was also dismissed as the judge simply did not admit that an ephemeral entity like a domain name could have a real world locale.
