Legal question: If a website advertises for a book and know they are dishonest;

[SBR_John]

Could they be found responsible for a repeat future act of dishonesty to a player referred by the advertising/promoting website?

They can no longer say we were not aware that xyzbook was stealing and acting in a fraudulent manner right?

To continue to advertise, market and promote Sportsbook.com and SBG, which have admitted stealing seems to me as cause for standing for a civil lawsuit. They were aware of the thefts, continued to allow them to advertise for more victims therefore they aided and abetted the ongoing pattern of fraud and theft. Yes? No?

[RickySteve]

Seems reasonable to me. I'd like to hear what Justin thinks.

[dante1]

Nice question John. Partial answer, a US citizen would not be able to begin a civil suit because you cannot seek damages against anyone if the case involves anything that breaks the laws of the United States.

In countries that do not have these insane laws a civil case might be possible.

[louis]

They may have a case to sue the rx for advertising thieves, but not in the U.S. because all sportsbooks whether they steal or not are considered to be doing something illegal (in most states, the recreational bettors in the U.S. are not considered to be doing something illegal, from what I understand, since they are not in the "business" of gaming). The real danger the RX faces is knowingly advertising sportsbooks to U.S. bettors. SBR was very smart to partition their site into U.S. and non-U.S. formats. It is possible the justice department will start going after sites like the rx, but so far the government has already successfully hurt the industry to a very large extent. The industry, in particular C, D, and F books are not doing well, and it is really starting to show. There has been a flight to quality and if the downturn in the industry gets any worse only the best sportsbooks (and those websites that advertise them) are going to do well. I am refering here to books catering to the U.S. bettor. European books will continue to do well.

[SBR_John]

Placing a sportsbet online by a US citizen is not against US law as I understand it. Several states have laws on the matter however.

So if we assume that the legal action was initiated by a player in a state that has no laws against placing a bet, would he have a case?

[bigboydan]

Funny you should bring this question up John.

Why just today the guy who was paralyzed in that triple murder case involving Pacman Jones just filed a lawsuit against the NFL. So with that being said I'd say that whoever brought a lawsuit of that nature against a website owner has a legitimate shot at winning IMO. Now with that being said...Thats why you only accept advertising revenue from top tier books.

[dante1]

John

If a lawyer feels that, "your hands are clean," meaning you have not done anything that broke a law then yes you would be able to begin a civil suit. However, many people go to court the big question is will you win. I don't believe this has been tested yet so the judge would set a precedent with his/her decision and then the appeals would begin. Is it possible you could win damages? Yes, but only if you can prove that you actually lost money as a direct result of that site and the decision and appeals go your way.

[SBR_John]

Thanks Dante.

These ripp offs like the one our own poster got caught in at SBG happen over and over again.

With Sportsbook.com, if a player is referred by Rx.com and is defrauded out of parlay winnings he should have a case against the Rx. At this point, these sites know beyond any doubt they are promoting fraudulent sportsbooks.

[dante1]

John

Well it certainly is immoral and maybe if tested it might even be illegal. It should be and I wouldn't be surprised if someday it is before a court. Hell, people begin civil cases for spilling hot coffee, getting burned and they sometimes win. Go figure.

[idontlikerocks]

i am not a lawyer but i like these discussions. mcdonalds serves hot coffee and a few years back lost a lawsuit because it was too hot and injured somebody. The new york post knows that mcdonalds coffee is hot but decides to sell advertisements for mcdonald's coffee. A woman see's the ad and thinks "boy i sure could go for some of that hot coffee, hmmmmm!" Now if she ends up burning herself, does she have a lawsuit against the new york post? i think that she could only win if she can prove that the new york post has knowledge the coffee is still too hot, hence , a bettor would have to prove that the rx knows that this sportsbook is still committing fraud in this exact particular manner.

[SBR_John]

The coffee case is probably not a great analogy. A better one would be if a site is touting an investment and that investment turns out to be a scam. Before the website who advertises the investment reasonably knows it a scam, they have a solid defense. They didn't know right?

Once they know it, or in these cases the company admits the thefts, and the advertiser continues to promote them, I got to think that is an exposed position for the promoter.

[increasedodds]

I do not believe the RX is in the U.S.

It would be quite a stretch for the U.S. government to go after an advertiser who is not U.S. based who is also not doign any money transfers to a U.S. citizen.

That being said, I do not know Canadian law, but in the U.S, you can sue, and might win, against someone for misleading you and causing financial harm.

When theRX recommends these books as their lead sponsors it can be assumed they are misleading you that they are safe.

-Sean

[Justin7]

I'm pretty sure you could sue a forum site for fraud.

As mentioned earlier, selecting a state where internet gambling is permissible will help. It might not be absolutely necessary though - the problem is not from betting, but refusing to give you you money back. There's nothing illegal with holding someone's money for them.

As far as the location of the forum... None of the forums operate out of the US. You have two options then: you bring the lawsuit in their home country, OR: you sue them in your state, get a judgment, and hire a lawyer to enforce the judgment wherever they reside or have assets. This is what happened to BoDog with the patent infringement case.

[curious]

Placing a sportsbet online by a US citizen is not against US law as I understand it. Several states have laws on the matter however.

So if we assume that the legal action was initiated by a player in a state that has no laws against placing a bet, would he have a case?

They absolutely have a case. And these posters who say you cannot sue someone because the company is engaged in illegal activities are flat wrong. Actually a lawsuit against a company which is breaking federal laws would be a very scary situation for that company because when you sue you can compel the company to provide access to their records and you can compel people to give depositions.

Here is how you get these crooks. You sue them and you go after their payment processors in the US who are de jure acting as their agents. You compel them to turn over all their records then you give those records to DOJ. You know have the mother ****ers for wire fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, illegal gambling, etc, etc.

I would most definitely drag anyone who hosts their advertising into the suit.

[ShamsWoof10]

Could they be found responsible for a repeat future act of dishonesty to a player referred by the advertising/promoting website?

They can no longer say we were not aware that xyzbook was stealing and acting in a fraudulent manner right?

To continue to advertise, market and promote Sportsbook.com and SBG, which have admitted stealing seems to me as cause for standing for a civil lawsuit. They were aware of the thefts, continued to allow them to advertise for more victims therefore they aided and abetted the ongoing pattern of fraud and theft. Yes? No?

Stop cryin'! You are acting like on of us now!

[gotsteam]

Such a typically USA attitude

I am not responsible for my own poor decisions - therefore I should be able to sue!

No wonder the USA is in the state of affairs it is in.

No different than a coffee example.

You buy a hot coffee, you know it is hot, so if you spill it on yourself you have no one to blam but yourself.

Obese people Suing McDonalds claiming their food made them fat - stop stuffing your fat face with Big Macs and be responsible as a human being for your own actions.

Same with sportsbooks.

If you are betting offshore, you choose your book or books and if one goes up, that is life.

If you found the book here or some other forum - John and/or these other webmasters should not be liable for your losses from a legal standpoint.

Whats next? Suing your crack dealer because he sold you some bad rock?

[curious]

Such a typically USA attitude

I am not responsible for my own poor decisions - therefore I should be able to sue!

No wonder the USA is in the state of affairs it is in.

No different than a coffee example.

You buy a hot coffee, you know it is hot, so if you spill it on yourself you have no one to blam but yourself.

Obese people Suing McDonalds claiming their food made them fat - stop stuffing your fat face with Big Macs and be responsible as a human being for your own actions.

Same with sportsbooks.

If you are betting offshore, you choose your book or books and if one goes up, that is life.

If you found the book here or some other forum - John and/or these other webmasters should not be liable for your losses from a legal standpoint.

That wasn't the question. The question was if they continue to host advertising from a sportsbook after they have evidence that the sportsbook routinely robs their customers, are they liable. They absolutely are liable. Adn there is a big difference between a book going out of business and a book like SBG who routinely robs consistent winners.

[gotsteam]

That wasn't the question. The question was if they continue to host advertising from a sportsbook after they have evidence that the sportsbook routinely robs their customers, are they liable. They absolutely are liable. Adn there is a big difference between a book going out of business and a book like SBG who routinely robs consistent winners.

So, All the US TV Networks should be enjoined in the obesity lawsuits because they continued to sell advertising to McDonalds even after they figured out big macs make people fat??


Simply selling advertising space should not make them liable.

There is a difference between selling ad space and "touting"

In either case, people need to learn to be responsible for their actions & decisions.

It is the lack of responsibility Americans display that has caused their government to intrude on every aspect of their lives.

If people behave like children, they should not be surprised that their government wants to treat them like children.

[SBR_John]

You are their last known supporter sham. Whatever you do for them or whatever money you have there just be careful. There is new info out that suggests they are in trouble. I think they are just dishonest but time will tell.

[Scooter]

(deleted by poster)

[gotsteam]

Common sense and logic tell me that this statement is absurd.

Two things that are rarely seen on this board.

[curious]

So, All the US TV Networks should be enjoined in the obesity lawsuits because they continued to sell advertising to McDonalds even after they figured out big macs make people fat??


Simply selling advertising space should not make them liable.

There is a difference between selling ad space and "touting"

In either case, people need to learn to be responsible for their actions & decisions.

It is the lack of responsibility Americans display that has caused their government to intrude on every aspect of their lives.

If people behave like children, they should not be surprised that their government wants to treat them like children.

You are missing the point crackhead. SBR sells themselves as the player's advocate and they sell themselves as providers of reliable and accurate information on the trustworthiness of the sportsbooks. If they then accept advertising from sportsbooks that they know are dishonest then their entire operation is a lie and they are liable.

It would be just like if a hospital allowed cigarette companies to put billboards on the sides of the hospital. Or, since we are talking about an illegal operation (offshore sportsbook), it would be like a hospital hosting billboards for cocaine dealers. A hospital should know the health risks and their customers would have an assumption that the hospital would only allow advertising from products that were healthy, so the advertising would be a de facto endoresement. This would be a trial lawyers dream case.

[gotsteam]

You are missing the point crackhead. SBR sells themselves as the player's advocate and they sell themselves as providers of reliable and accurate information on the trustworthiness of the sportsbooks. If they then accept advertising from sportsbooks that they know are dishonest then their entire operation is a lie and they are liable.

It would be just like if a hospital allowed cigarette companies to put billboards on the sides of the hospital. Or, since we are talking about an illegal operation (offshore sportsbook), it would be like a hospital hosting billboards for cocaine dealers. A hospital should know the health risks and their customers would have an assumption that the hospital would only allow advertising from products that were healthy, so the advertising would be a de facto endoresement. This would be a trial lawyers dream case.

So if you saw a cocaine dealer advertising on the side of a hospital, you would assume that cocaine was healthy?

That is a completely flawed argument.

[curious]

So if you saw a cocaine dealer advertising on the side of a hospital, you would assume that cocaine was healthy?

That is a completely flawed argument.

Since the hospital is a health care provider, their customers could make the claim that they would assume that a health care provider would not accept advertising from potentially lethal products.

[gotsteam]

Since the hospital is a health care provider, their customers could make the claim that they would assume that a health care provider would not accept advertising from potentially lethal products.

So the "customer" as you refer to them should not have any intelligence or common sense whatsoever?

This is EXACTLY why the USA is as screwed up as it is!

But your honour, Ronald McDonald didnt tell me his greasy fatty hamburgers and french french fries cooked in and covered with lard would make me fat....how was I to know

How can the evil newspaper, tv and radio companies accept advertising from the Diabolical Ronald McDonald.

They should be sued!

[curious]

So the "customer" as you refer to them should not have any intelligence or common sense whatsoever?

This is EXACTLY why the USA is as screwed up as it is!

But your honour, Ronald McDonald didnt tell me his greasy fatty hamburgers and french french fries cooked in and covered with lard would make me fat....how was I to know

How can the evil newspaper, tv and radio companies accept advertising from the Diabolical Ronald McDonald.

They should be sued!

You are still missing the point. The newspaper is not in the health business. I dont have an expectation that the newspaper would have expertise to know if mcdonald's is healthy or not. However, I would have that expectation with a hospital.

Its the same with a sports book review website. They are promoting themselves as having expert knowledge in the reliability of a sportsbook. A sportsbook ad on their site carries with it an implied endoresement. Now, if the sportsbook review site was advertising lingerie that would not carry an implied endoresement because the sportsbook review site is not promoting themselves as lingerie experts. Likewise, if a lingerie site hosts ads for sportsbooks those ads do not carry an implied endorsement because a lingerie company is not promoting itself as an expert in the reliability of sportsbooks.

I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.

[gotsteam]

You are still missing the point. The newspaper is not in the health business. I dont have an expectation that the newspaper would have expertise to know if mcdonald's is healthy or not. However, I would have that expectation with a hospital.

Its the same with a sports book review website. They are promoting themselves as having expert knowledge in the reliability of a sportsbook. A sportsbook ad on their site carries with it an implied endoresement. Now, if the sportsbook review site was advertising lingerie that would not carry an implied endoresement because the sportsbook review site is not promoting themselves as lingerie experts. Likewise, if a lingerie site hosts ads for sportsbooks those ads do not carry an implied endorsement because a lingerie company is not promoting itself as an expert in the reliability of sportsbooks.

I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.

1) You should not assume I do not understand.
I understand your point of view completely.

2) You miss my point

The responsibility to have common sense lies with the consumer.
Allowing them an excuse for lacking common sense and responsibility is what has gotten the USA in the mess it is in.

It is so drilled into the average americans mind that is has become the culture of the USA.

This is why the USA is home to 90%+ of all lawsuits in the world.

People shirking responsibility to have their own common sense.

As I said previously, come on people grow up and behave like responsible adults.

It is this attitude that has caused your government to think they need to "protect" you from the evil online gambling and online poker sites and that you should not have the final say how you spend your own money which you work hard for and pay taxes on!

[Willie Bee]

Hate to say it since I am proud to be American, but gotsteam makes a good point. Far too many in this country want the privileges of a citizen without putting forth any responsibility of their own. And frivolous suits, in my opinion, like the hot coffee deal sometimes make it all the way through and find in favor of the plaintiff. And when stuff like that happens, it leads me to believe that you can file a suit against just about anyone or any entity for just about any reason.

But I'm not really sure that some who accepts advertising from 'crooks' is necessarily liable. Look at the cigarette industry, which I think is a better example than Ronald's hot coffee. People knew that smoking was not healthy for a long time. The US Government finally cracked down on ciggy companies in the 60s, made them add the notes about it being unhealthy on their products and prevented them from advertising any longer on TV around 1970 or so. But to this day, you can still see cigarette adverts in print and on billboards.

There have been several lawsuits, especially suits brought by states, against the cigarette industry for pushing their deadly product for so long without any warnings. Individuals have even won some suits. So it seems to me that if lawyers thought the courts were going to hold anyone that took ad dollars from the cig industry responsible, they'd have also included the television networks, magazine publishers and billboard owners in these suits.

Just my $0.02, and some of you may think I have change coming, but I don't feel that accepting advertising along these lines makes you liable.

[gotsteam]

Hate to say it since I am proud to be American, but gotsteam makes a good point. Far too many in this country want the privileges of a citizen without putting forth any responsibility of their own. And frivolous suits, in my opinion, like the hot coffee deal sometimes make it all the way through and find in favor of the plaintiff. And when stuff like that happens, it leads me to believe that you can file a suit against just about anyone or any entity for just about any reason.

But I'm not really sure that some who accepts advertising from 'crooks' is necessarily liable. Look at the cigarette industry, which I think is a better example than Ronald's hot coffee. People knew that smoking was not healthy for a long time. The US Government finally cracked down on ciggy companies in the 60s, made them add the notes about it being unhealthy on their products and prevented them from advertising any longer on TV around 1970 or so. But to this day, you can still see cigarette adverts in print and on billboards.

There have been several lawsuits, especially suits brought by states, against the cigarette industry for pushing their deadly product for so long without any warnings. Individuals have even won some suits. So it seems to me that if lawyers thought the courts were going to hold anyone that took ad dollars from the cig industry responsible, they'd have also included the television networks, magazine publishers and billboard owners in these suits.

Just my $0.02, and some of you may think I have change coming, but I don't feel that accepting advertising along these lines makes you liable.

Excellent post, my opinion gos a little further. Why should a person need to be told smoking is bad for them? Are they so completely stupid/ignorant?

I dont think they should be any less responsible even if they are ignorant.

it is no different than speeding, just because you didnt see the speed limit sign ( ignorance ) doesnt mean you are less responsible for speeding, and if caught you equally deserve the ticket.

[SBR_John]

You are still missing the point. The newspaper is not in the health business. I dont have an expectation that the newspaper would have expertise to know if mcdonald's is healthy or not. However, I would have that expectation with a hospital.

Its the same with a sports book review website. They are promoting themselves as having expert knowledge in the reliability of a sportsbook. A sportsbook ad on their site carries with it an implied endoresement. Now, if the sportsbook review site was advertising lingerie that would not carry an implied endoresement because the sportsbook review site is not promoting themselves as lingerie experts. Likewise, if a lingerie site hosts ads for sportsbooks those ads do not carry an implied endorsement because a lingerie company is not promoting itself as an expert in the reliability of sportsbooks.

I like this post...makes a lot of sense.

[Marco C]

Could they be found responsible for a repeat future act of dishonesty to a player referred by the advertising/promoting website?

They can no longer say we were not aware that xyzbook was stealing and acting in a fraudulent manner right?

To continue to advertise, market and promote Sportsbook.com and SBG, which have admitted stealing seems to me as cause for standing for a civil lawsuit. They were aware of the thefts, continued to allow them to advertise for more victims therefore they aided and abetted the ongoing pattern of fraud and theft. Yes? No?

I suppose one question is what is the duty of care owed by a website such as this, or the RX to be quite specific, to a reader.

That involves a wide number of questions, but it all comes down to this...what is the duty of care now that the RX knows that SBG and Sportsbook.com are stiffing players? Probably not much in this instance. It is also obvious that the RX, although not by choice, has many posts that let you know these are stiff books. So the RX's defense is that it simply is a dispenser of information and that, once it knew this issue existed, there was ample warning from other information on their site that you shouldn't get involved with these dicks.

But there are two other issues. One is the issue of conspiracy to defraud. The other is negligence.

A conspiracy to defraud case can be made out where it can be shown there is an agreement that can reasonably be seen as having a purpose of defrauding someone. The role of the RX in that conspiracy would be to lead the sheep to slaughter at the linked site, in this case SBG etc. For that to work, the RX would have to be reasonable aware that SBG etc. intended to stiff players in the future as well, and specifically players that came to them through the RX link. Possible but not likely.

Negligence. That all leads back to the question of duty of care and getting into that argument needs big bucks and difficult questions as to jurisdiction arise.

Unfortunately, there is no legal tort of being a shameless shill for a stiff book.

[Marco C]

They absolutely have a case. And these posters who say you cannot sue someone because the company is engaged in illegal activities are flat wrong.

You're very right there. I think there may be a requirement if there are joint proceedings, the criminal proceedings should conclude before the civil ones go ahead.

I'm not sure what kind of a suit people are talking about. A suit to collect gaming winnings. You can't sue someone for gaming winnings. It's against public policy in all English law jurisdictions, as far as I know.

[jjgold]

No laws with offshore gambling so anything goes

[curious]

You're very right there. I think there may be a requirement if there are joint proceedings, the criminal proceedings should conclude before the civil ones go ahead.

I'm not sure what kind of a suit people are talking about. A suit to collect gaming winnings. You can't sue someone for gaming winnings. It's against public policy in all English law jurisdictions, as far as I know.

You can sue anyone for anything. See, the problem that they have is that it is not illegal for me to place bets, it is illegal for them to accept the bets. It is also illegal for them to transfer funds. They have a really big problem when I go ahead with this. I'm just waiting for my brother to come back from Saudi Arabia.

[gotsteam]

You can sue anyone for anything. See, the problem that they have is that it is not illegal for me to place bets, it is illegal for them to accept the bets. It is also illegal for them to transfer funds. They have a really big problem when I go ahead with this. I'm just waiting for my brother to come back from Saudi Arabia.

So typical.

You will incur costs ( legal ) and recover absolutely nothing.