Gtbets not taking PA residents any longer

[stevex]

Add PA to the list for GT. Jersey has been on there for a while. I don’t get it?

[Ksherm]

Or Rhode Island.

[Frank]

Or Nevada

[thagame24]

They're probably thinking they'll only get bonus whores and credit card scammers from states where it's legal. There's a little logic to that thinking, but it's short sighted, especially if they're banning states that don't have mobile wagering yet (like Rhode Island).

[Legions36]

U sure jersey cause I have no problem using them?

[mtneer1212]

They are blocking those states because they are the likely states who would have grounds to sue/seize/financially harm their companies because they are be robbing legal regulated sportsbooks in those states of revenue. Any state could come after them, but the legal sports wagering states can show damages, where a state like Utah, where sports betting is not legal could not show damages because money is not being diverted from a legal in-state sportsbook. i expect other offshore sportsbooks to follow suit soon, depending on their tolerance/exposure to risk, and the size of their legal fund. It is also likely that those states have sent out cease and desist notices to those companies notifying them of their intent.

And before you forum lawyers says they are offshore and can't do that...... they can. Just like the states who sue the sovereign Indian tribes for Internet payday loans. If the customer is a resident of a state, the state's laws prevail.

[thomorino]

The reason Bovada and other offshore books won't take customers from states that have legalized online gambling, or, like Pennsylvania, will soon get legalized on line gambling, is not because of fear of the State using them. States could sue them and win but they'd have no way of collecting, the courts couldn't use liens or asset forfeiture on property in Costa Rica. The reason Bovada and other offshore books won't take customers in states where gambling is legal or is likely to become legal soon is because the Federal government might seize their domain or take down their website to protect these states. Only the Feds have the power to take down internet domain names which is what happened with Poker Stars around 7-8 years ago.

[RonPaul2008]

The reason Bovada and other offshore books won't take customers from states that have legalized online gambling, or, like Pennsylvania, will soon get legalized on line gambling, is not because of fear of the State using them. States could sue them and win but they'd have no way of collecting, the courts couldn't use liens or asset forfeiture on property in Costa Rica. The reason Bovada and other offshore books won't take customers in states where gambling is legal or is likely to become legal soon is because the Federal government might seize their domain or take down their website to protect these states. Only the Feds have the power to take down internet domain names which is what happened with Poker Stars around 7-8 years ago.

This is incorrect. They can block .com or u.s. domains, this is why nearly every bookie moved off .com a bunch of years back.

[thomorino]

This is incorrect. They can block .com or u.s. domains, this is why nearly every bookie moved off .com a bunch of years back.

You don't understand what I'm saying, I'm not saying that States can't block.com domains, of course they can, but that's very different than pulling a domain name down and preventing them from doing business - only the Feds can do that. If States won lawsuits against the books they would not be able to collect money, the suit would only be successful in preventing the offshore website from doing business in the state - which states can do anyways.

[thomorino]

States can block domain names the same as companies can - they can't seize website of companies overseas doing business in their state, only the Feds have the power to do that - the books don't want to risk having their websites taken down by the Feds so they won't target states that have an interested in not letting them do business.

[TheMoneyShot]

Interesting perspectives... as to why....

There's a reason why offshore is offshore...

But to block state residents in which gambling is legal??? Doesn't make any sense.

I'm sure the truth will come out eventually.

Think about it though.... if you're a book like GT... why would you want to restrict residents? You'd want all the clients possible.

How would the state come after you? Owners offshore have no plans to come back inside the USA ever again.

[thomorino]

Interesting perspectives... as to why....

There's a reason why offshore is offshore...

But to block state residents in which gambling is legal??? Doesn't make any sense.

I'm sure the truth will come out eventually.

Think about it though.... if you're a book like GT... why would you want to restrict residents? You'd want all the clients possible.

How would the state come after you? Owners offshore have no plans to come back inside the USA ever again.

Exactly, its not the States these sites are afraid of, they don't want the Feds to take down their website which is what happened to pokerstars briefly with the money laundering issue.

[RonPaul2008]

Exactly, its not the States these sites are afraid of, they don't want the Feds to take down their website which is what happened to pokerstars briefly with the money laundering issue.

Pokerstars was using a .com website. The feds can't take down a .eu or .ag website.
Bookmaker.com got seized several years ago. They simply switched to .eu and have been operating normally ever since.

[thomorino]

Pokerstars was using a .com website. The feds can't take down a .eu or .ag website.
Bookmaker.com got seized several years ago. They simply switched to .eu and have been operating normally ever since.

The United States Federal Government can basically do what they want to do, if a company is targetting US residents.

[eaglesfan371]

Interesting

Did not realize states could not sue unless legal.

I never figured states would ever sue an outside entity. How would anyone enforce such a judgement anyways. There isn’t an international collection agency I don’t believe? (If I’m wrong please let me know, not a lawyer and would be intrigued to learn more)

[thomorino]

Pokerstars was using a .com website. The feds can't take down a .eu or .ag website.
Bookmaker.com got seized several years ago. They simply switched to .eu and have been operating normally ever since.

To have jurisdiction in federal court there are 2 basic kinds of jurisdiction, diversity and federal question, as long as a company is targetting US residents the feds have jurisdiction to take action to protect states and residents.

[mtneer1212]

Interesting

Did not realize states could not sue unless legal.

I never figured states would ever sue an outside entity. How would anyone enforce such a judgement anyways. There isn’t an international collection agency I don’t believe? (If I’m wrong please let me know, not a lawyer and would be intrigued to learn more)

Any state can sue. Only states that have legal gambling can show damages where the offshore is taking tax revenue from legally regulated operators within the state. So for Utah to sue, they could win..... but would have nothing to show for damages. You can't take customers away from your state if your state doesn't offer a legal way to wager.

[mtneer1212]

The Feds would try to attack from a money laundering, banking fraud angle. That is a criminal crime. States would attack from a civil standpoint, suing for damages against their legal operations.

[thomorino]

Any state can sue. Only states that have legal gambling can show damages where the offshore is taking tax revenue from legally regulated operators within the state. So for Utah to sue, they could win..... but would have nothing to show for damages. You can't take customers away from your state if your state doesn't offer a legal way to wager.

The Feds would try to attack from a money laundering, banking fraud angle. That is a criminal crime. States would attack from a civil standpoint, suing for damages against their legal operations.

Civil suits are not just for money, they are also to stop actions, States would sue more to stop a website from operating in their state by getting an injunction than going for damages they woudn't get anyways.

[RonPaul2008]

To have jurisdiction in federal court there are 2 basic kinds of jurisdiction, diversity and federal question, as long as a company is targetting US residents the feds have jurisdiction to take action to protect states and residents.

The U.S. government can get verisign or godaddy or other american domian name registrars to take down sites. This doesn't stop the books because the u.s government has no control over non-american registrars (which means .com and several other top level domains are not suitable for the bookies). They just use a registar that is not amerian and typically in a country that isn't an american lapdog. If you were correct then they would have taken down lots of sites by now. As I mentioned before, Bookmaker.com was seized in 2011 and within days was back online with .eu and has been ever since. Same story with bodog/bovada going to .lv and others going to .ag

[thomorino]

If you target and do business in the us than the US government can take action and hey do have jurisdiction, to feds don't care about online gambling right now, that's why sites like bookmaker are okay, there are reasons poker stars and other companies are very careful about operating in the US.

[RonPaul2008]

If you target and do business in the us than the US government can take action and hey do have jurisdiction, to feds don't care about online gambling right now, that's why sites like bookmaker are okay, there are reasons poker stars and other companies are very careful about operating in the US.

No, the u.s. government has absolutely no power over domains like .eu or .ag
The best they can do is put pressure on the governments that control those registrars.
I suppose they could enlist american isp's to block access to the sites, but there are ways around that.

[TheMoneyShot]

I agree with what RonPaul is saying.... perfectly logical.

As to why GTBets is restricting gambling in certain states.... it's rather odd.

[thomorino]

If a company or individual is engaging in criminal activity in the US the US has jurisdiction in federal court, obviously the Feds wouldn't takedown most websites without going to court first.

[TheMoneyShot]

If a company or individual is engaging in criminal activity in the US the US has jurisdiction in federal court, obviously the Feds wouldn't takedown most websites without going to court first.

Correct. But, if the owner doesn't have any ties to the USA anymore... in regards to property or other businesses.... how do you enforce the ruling?

I think that's why Pinnacle's owner at the time honored USA's law in regards to online wagering. He had ties to the USA.... property etc. But, owners like Bookmaker... 5Dimes... etc... I don't think they are coming back to the USA anytime soon. Otherwise... they would of shutdown.

As to why GTBets cares about State Law? No one seems to know the answer.... but I'm sure we will find out.

[Legions36]

U sure jersey cause I have no problem using them?

I logged in today now and message saying we don't take players from your state but you can still play out and withdraw. It looks like they took the deposits away from cashier.

[mtneer1212]

I logged in today now and message saying we don't take players from your state but you can still play out and withdraw. It looks like they took the deposits away from cashier.

It's not the betting or websites that can be stopped; it is the transfer of money that is vulnerable.

[Legions36]

It's not the betting or websites that can be stopped; it is the transfer of money that is vulnerable.

Then why just not keep it only bitcoins to deposit and pay there covered if they do that?