Online poker in the United States may soon get a significant boost, since shared liquidity appears to be on the horizon. That’s because of a pending lawsuit against the US Department of Justice over a previous administration’s interpretation of the Wire Act, combined with recent developments in shared liquidity of online poker.
Michigan’s online poker roll out, indicates a shift in legal tides that could substantially boost the number of players in online poker pools.
Shared Liquidity of Online poker in United States
Here is a list of states in the United States that currently allow some kind of licensed online gaming:
- Delaware,
- Pennsylvania,
- West Virginia,
- Nevada,
- New Jersey, and
- Michigan.
These are all involved in an ongoing legal battle.
Shared Liquidity of Online Poker : Ongoing Battle
Almost every poker player in the United States is aware of the Interstate Wire Act of 1961, a federal statute that prohibits interstate wagering. While numerous judgements and views have been issued over whether the statute extends to online poker and other types of gambling, a 2011 decision by the Department of Justice under President Barack Obama decided that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting.
However, under President Donald Trump, the Department of Justice revised its position in 2018, issuing an opinion indicating that the Wire Act does indeed extend to all types of gambling, including casino games, lotteries, and poker.
The overturned ruling, which has been linked to the late Sheldon Adelson, a Republican megadonor primary challenger of online gaming, has caused headaches and uncertainty in the gaming business, and has left states considering or in the process of adopting online gambling in uncharted territory.
New Hampshire sued the DOJ over the matter, and in June 2019, the Federal District Court decided against the DOJ’s 2018 interpretation of the Wire Act, indicating that online bingo and poker do not violate US law.
How Supreme Court Review Shared Liquidity of Online Poker
In January 2021, the 2019 judgment was eventually confirmed by the US District Court after the DOJ unsuccessfully appealed the case.
The Justice Department then declared that “the government does not intend to seek Supreme Court review of the First Circuit’s ruling” after a June 2021 deadline to do so had passed.
While the District Court’s support of the narrow view of the Wire Act was largely regarded as a huge victory for the shared liquidity of online poker and gaming businesses, the DOJ’s unwillingness to publicly rescind its 2018 ruling has left stakeholders and players concerned and unsettled.
Experts predict that IGT will win the DOJ lawsuit on Shared Liquidity of Online Poker
In November 2021, International Game Technology, or IGT, sued the DOJ under Attorney General Merrick Garland in an attempt to force the DOJ to publicly take a position on the 2018 opinion and explain the scope of the 2019 New Hampshire judgement.
The Rhode Island-based lottery business called for “a declaratory ruling that… the Wire Act does not apply to IGT’s non-sports gaming activities” in the action, which was filed in Rhode Island District Court.
“Because almost all contemporary lottery and gaming rely on interstate lines, and because the lottery and regulated gaming businesses were developed on the idea that the Wire Act offers no obstacle to those state-controlled operations,” the complaint states. “Because relief in that case was confined to the plaintiffs, the 2018 OLC Opinion remains the DOJ’s official policy today.”
Shared Liquidity of Online Poker : Getting Know about Non-lottery Gaming Company
According to the lawsuit, “as a result, IGT’s entire non-lottery gaming company is open to prosecution, and the DOJ has only promised a 90-day heads up before subjecting IGT’s lottery operation to the Wire Act as well.”
The DOJ informed the court last month that it needed additional time to reply to IGT’s lawsuit. The court granted a 30-day extension, giving the DOJ until February 23 to respond to the lawsuit.
Earlier this week, a number of gaming attorneys and analysts told US Gaming Review that time extension requests are very common and do not always indicate progress in the case. According to Jermy Kleiman of Saiber LLC, “it is probable the DOJ is pushing the can down the road a little since it has not yet developed a policy position.”
Whether or not the DOJ publicly reverses its 2018 reading of the Wire Act, gaming experts generally expect IGT will win its lawsuit.
Shared Liquidity of Online Poker by DOJ Best Case Scenario
Anthony Cabot of the University of Nevada-Las Vegas’ Boyd School of Law told US Gaming Review that “if this got to court, IGT would argue for a ruling that had larger consequences than the impact of the 2018 opinion on its Rhode Island business.”
“The best-case scenario is for the DOJ to retract its plainly wrong and politically driven 2018 opinion and reassert the right analysis from its 2011 ruling that the Wire Act only applies to sports gambling,” Cabot continued.
IGT is not alone in asking President Joe Biden’s Justice Department to explain its position on the 2018 judgment. A group of 26 Attorneys General wrote to Garland in June 2021, seeking him to clarify the department’s official stance on the previous administration’s interpretation, emphasizing that “states require finality on this matter before they spend additional resources in the creation of online lottery platforms.”
“The (DOJ) can and should put a stop to this shared liquidity of online poker, once and for all,” stated the group, which includes lawyers from Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, among the seven states that have legalized online poker. For local poker games you can join at situs slot online.
Read More: Super Rainbow Megaways Review: RTP 96.13%, High Volatile
Source: https://hardd.work/slot777