LATEST iMEGA ARGUMENT FROM U.S. APPEARS LARGELY UNCHANGED

28 September 2007

If the judge approves, it looks as if this issue is headed for a court hearing


In previous InfoPowa reports we have detailed the back-and-forth legal arguments between the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association [iMEGA] and the US government following the launch of a legal action by the former challenging the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and requesting a temporary restraining order on its implementation.

Despite the fact that regulations have still not been framed by the government for the UIGEA, which seeks to disrupt financial transactions with online gambling companies, the legislation has caused widespread international damage to Internet betting companies.

Just before the weekend deadline, the United States submitted its latest argument on Case Number 3:07-cv-02625-MLC-TJB to Judge Mary L Cooper in the Trenton Division of the US District Court for New Jersey.

The fresh US submission appears to be largely unchanged from its previous motion for the out-of-hand dismissal of the case, which iMEGA had already addressed in a fifty page submission last week (see previous InfoPowa report) Departed US Attorney General Gonzales is replaced in the document by new acting AG Peter D Keisler, and 18 cases are quoted as references to the 4 basic arguments against the iMEGA case, accusing it of "Mischaracterisations of the UIGEA and misapplications of the law."

The four basic arguments remain largely unaltered as:

1) Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge UIGEA under the First Amendment to the Constitution because:

a) Plaintiff has not demonstrated a credible threat of prosecution under UIGEA

b) Plaintiff cannot base standing on rank speculation about the economic losses to third parties.

2) Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the UIGEA's alleged inconsistency with a World Trade Organisation decision.

3) Plaintiff's Constitutional challenge of the forthcoming regulations under the UIGEA is unripe because these regulations have yet to issue.

4) UIGEA is not a content-based restriction on speech and therefore is not subject to strict scrutiny.

Unless Judge Cooper concedes to the government's demand that the case be dismissed, the argument now seems set to unfold in oral submissions before the judge on September 26.

Online Casino News courtesy of InfoPowa