
Originally Posted by
Vallerius
Anyway, my two cents say that a state-based regulatory system is going to be the way forward for the U.S., if forward is indeed the word to use.
There is another important part to the definition for "Unlawful Internet gambling":
The term 'unlawful Internet gambling' does not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made exclusively within a single state.
This is by no means a welcome sign for states to begin regulating, but I think it is remarkable foresight. In previous Congresses, the AGA formally opposed Internet gambling prohibition bills that didn't contain a states rights exemption, but it was neutral on bills that did have one. It is not merely by chance that an exemption for state-based gaming is slipped into the UIGEA.
Supposing that a state did want to regulate (Nevada and Virgin Islands already have the necessary legislation in place but Nevada's Gaming Commission still needs to draft the regulations to proceed any further), the DOJ may or may not decide to challenge it. I doubt it would even issue a challenge because its case is really that weak. Sports betting of course will probably never be permitted because it's clearly prohibited by the Wire Act and because the big rich sports leagues oppose it.
A prohibition isn't going to work. What we have now isn't really a prohibition, people are still gambling. They will continue to find a way. It's only a matter of time before a state realizes the possibilities.