Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Internet Gambling Banned

By Sean F. Kane
October 30, 2006

The House and Senate worked late into the night on Friday, Sept. 29, 2006 to finalize 'H.R. 4954: Security and Accountability For Every Port Act' or the SAFE Port Act and get it to the House floor. By early in the morning on Saturday, Sept. 30, 2006, just before adjourning for the election break, the House had passed the bill by a count of 409-2, and the Senate had agreed to the conference report by unanimous consent. Senate Majority Leader, and Presidential hopeful Bill Frist (R-TN) was the point-person for certain groups lobbying to ban Internet gambling with the addition of Title VIII to the legislation.

Title VIII of H.R. 4954 is entitled 'Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006' (the Act). The bill prohibits banks and other financial institutions from processing payments for online-gambling companies. However, exempted from this legislative ban are state lotteries, fantasy sports leagues, horserace betting and Indian gaming. An earlier version of the bill ' passed by the House on July 10, 2006 ' approved an additional provision updating and expanding the 1961 Wire Act, which prohibits gambling companies from using wire-based communications to place bets, to specifically include use of the Internet. However, this provision was not ultimately included in the version finally passed by the full Congress. President Bush signed the bill into law on Friday, Oct. 13, 2006, a date that many offshore online-gambling entities are finding sufficiently unlucky as their potential U.S. market vanishes.

The Act requires that within 270 days of enactment, the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the Attorney General, issue regulations that would prohibit approving a transaction between a U.S.-based customer account and an Internet-gambling merchant. The wording of the Act seems to extend to credit cards, electronic funds transfers, checks or similar instruments, or any other form of financial transaction as prescribed by the above-referenced agencies tasked with preparing the regulations. Financial institutions would be required to follow those regulations, and would be subject to criminal fines and imprisonment, for not more than 5 years, as well as civil penalties for failure to comply with the Act.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.