Western Union and others threatening my sites

[allfreechips]

OK, This is the 4th bank now to have an issue with me promoting them on allfreechips.

http://www.allfreechips.com/casino-b...o-banking.html

I have had to remove or change the names /images of American Express, Money Gram and now remove ALL mention of Western Union

Now I can see getting an email and asking, but I see these all over the place, including casinocity and ranking well abouve the allfreechips banking pages. So Why am I getting hammered on these things? They had my ISP threaten to shut my site down in 24 hours if i couldnt remove all traces of WU on my site.

[MichaelCorfman]

I would be interested in understanding the legal rationale given in the request.

In general, on a review or informational site, there should not be a legal issue in most cases if done properly.

I believe there is an issue if a logo is used in a way that can give consumers the false impression that a site has an affiliation with a brand when there is no such affiliation. That can be considered a trademark violation.

In the case of Casino City, our use is in a directory context, where it is clear the brand logos are shown as part of a directory entry providing editorial information about the brand for the user, and so our use definitely falls under fair use guidelines. And on that basis I anticipate we would defend our use and not comply with such a request were we to receive one.

Michael

[allfreechips]

That was my thought exactly, and I feel I list each bank with a review of such, with the proper logo and a link to their webpage if there is one.

here is the cached version

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Also, under the casino reviews I woul list the banks they allow, some of course having western union as a bank option. Once again its informational from the casino I am reviewing.

Last thing i need is a no win lawsuit on somthing like this but I believe its getting a little out of control.

The main letter from WU states the UIGA rules, stateing they can not be associated with gambling in the united states. And thats fine as were not just a US portal.

[UltimatePokerBonus]

Wow - interesting. I do the same thing and show poker rooms that accept western union. I've often wondered if WU would eventaully do anything about even poker rooms that list their logos as a deposit method. Some poker roooms just call it cash transfer but some actually use the logo.
WU has to know it happens, maybe they are getting "heat" from a regulatory agancy?

[TheGooner]

Michael, in answer to your question - the rationale is simple.

The logo will have been used to indicate the Western Union, or Amex, or Visa or Mastercard can be used to deposit funds into an online gambling site.

Now that is illegal for American Players to do so under the rules of UIGEA, and if the financial institution are seen to be lax or knowingly allowing US players to move funds into gambling sites then they will be acting illegally under the UIGEA.

We've had a few of these "requests" (they are usually strongly worded threats) from the large institutions I've highlighted above.

And although I was able to enter into some dialogue with them - particularly around the fact that they DO in fact do this on a global basis and that US customers are also able to regualrly make deposits - they still wanted the items removed.

I'm interested to see that you have not hada request yet - perhaps Casino City does not have much traction on money transfer search terms yet? If they'd noticed you and your US location - then you would be on their hit list I am sure.


But if you do get one - I'd be very surprised if you decide to "Stick to your principal" here for long ... it's a fight with no real upside ...

We've removed the logos as and when directed by these organisations - it's simply easier to replace them with generic words like "money transfer group" or "major credit cards" and let the target program handle the specific details.

[MichaelCorfman]

I'm interested to see that you have not hada request yet - perhaps Casino City does not have much traction on money transfer search terms yet? If they'd noticed you and your US location - then you would be on their hit list I am sure.


But if you do get one - I'd be very surprised if you decide to "Stick to your principal" here for long ... it's a fight with no real upside ...

We do have decent traction on some payment terms. And I do think we have received requests from time to time.

And I always stick to my guns on unfounded cease and desist orders (which is the only type we have ever received). I used to get a moderate number of them from land-based casinos for promoting online casinos on a page with their brand name.

The first amendement rights around the way we do things are solid, and we refuse to ever cave in when we are in the right in matters like that. Just a matter of principal for me. And a matter of believing that others should not compromise the quality of the directories we provide.

Michael

[TheGooner]

Really? You've received a request and refused it?

Would you like to get specific about one of these requests, your responses and approximate costs, and whether there was any follow up demands from them? Or whether they simply stopped?

Obviously that information would be valuable to the rest of us who are continuing to field these demands.

[allfreechips]

Intersting,I also thouight they wereunfounded,but then my isp sends me an emailmy site will offline in 24 hours if i dont remove them.

[universal4]

Western Union went after everyone using their logos on gambling sites YEARS and years ago.

Years before the law took effect by the way in case anyone is wondering...

Rick
Universal4

[MichaelCorfman]

Really? You've received a request and refused it?

Would you like to get specific about one of these requests, your responses and approximate costs, and whether there was any follow up demands from them? Or whether they simply stopped?

Obviously that information would be valuable to the rest of us who are continuing to field these demands.

Yes, I have received a number of cease and desist letters over the years. And I have consistently refused do do what has been requested in those letters because the requests were not, in my opinion, for anything I was legally bound to do.

I have enough understanding of the law that I normally respond to such requests without involving an attorney at all, so the cost is $0 in legal fees, and perhaps an hour or a few hours of my time. Sometimes, if I am not completely certain, I will forward my proposed response to our attorney, and will discuss the response with him to see if any adjustments to what I initially wrote are prudent.

I've never had follow-up demands to any of my responses. Usually there is no reply at all and I chase the sender of the demand to confirm it has been received. Although there have been some instances of folks responding saying they agree with the position I took in the end. I always explain my position and request that they respond if they think my arguments are mistaken.

I try to act completely ethically in everything I do, but I am also quite insistent in asserting various freedoms to which I am entitled under the U.S. Constitution. As some folks know, I went so far as to sue the U.S. Department of Justice at one time regarding the first amendment right of Casino City to advertise online gaming. That did cost a lot of money (close to a half million dollars in legal fees), but I received a lot of support from some big guns in the industry to help defray those legal expenses.

Michael

[MichaelCorfman]

Intersting,I also thouight they wereunfounded,but then my isp sends me an emailmy site will offline in 24 hours if i dont remove them.

The fact that your ISP sent you an e-mail demanding removal does not mean the demands are well founded.

In my case, we host all of our websites in our own data center, so I don't have to worry about being subject to the whims of an ISP.

The way the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) works, there is a safe harbor for ISP's. If they receive a demand to remove something, and they follow up on that demand, then they cannot be held liable either for infringement themselves if there really was infringement, or for taking down material that was not infringing if it was not.

You do have the right to go back to the ISP and defend the content as being non-infringing, and in that case the ISP can restore the material pending the outcome of a court case.

A really good website on the chilling effects of such demands on free speech, and also examples of lots of cease and desist documents can be found on the website www.chillingeffects.org. As just one example, all of the cease and desist requests Google receives under the DMCA are available on that website.

One of my favorite cease and desist letters is based on an April Fool Day spoof where thegeek created a fake product - canned unicorn meat - and labeled it "the other white meat". They received a cease and desist letter from the U.S. National Pork Board for infringing their trademarked slogan referring to pork as "the other white meat."

For a good article on this, see the following ny times blog post:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...her-white-meat

Michael

[casinoking]

i would just get a new host and put privacy and ignore them