WASHINGTON COURT RULES AGAINST BETCHA.COM
3 September 2010
Long-running dispute over legality of an
innovative concept
Nicholas Jenkins, the feisty lawyer and internet
entrepreneur who has fought the Washington state
government through the courts in defending his
Betcha.com concept (see previous InfoPowa reports) may
have come to the end of the road.
This week the
Washington Supreme Court ruled that the founder of
Betcha.com'€™s unique proposition that betting was not
gambling because losing players were not compelled to
pay up still constituted illegal gambling.
In a
unanimous ruling, the court defined Betcha.com as an
illegal bookie because it arranged bets and took a
percentage of the action as a fee, reports Associated
Press.
The Bench said it did not have to decide
whether optional payments by bettors would allow
Betcha.com to technically escape the state's gambling
restrictions.
"Under the statutory definition of
bookmaking, it is immaterial whether or not Betcha users
were engaged in gambling activity," Justice Tom Chambers
wrote for the court.
With typical irreverence and
humour, Jenkins wrote on his blog that the court's
reasoning "didn't pass the giggle test."
"Never
in a million years did I expect an opinion like this
one," Jenkins wrote. "The court's error is so obvious
that I wonder if a single justice even cracked our
brief, let alone the Revised Code of Washington."
Washington state allows some forms of non-tribal
gambling, including cardrooms that offer poker,
blackjack and other games with relatively low stakes.
Online gambling and bookmaking fees, however, are
specifically outlawed in the state, with draconian
criminal penalties for operators and players.
Betcha.com allowed users to wager on just about anything
- from sporting events, to political contests, to
whether the moon would be full on a given night. Users
couldn't bet more than $1,000 at any one time.
Anyone wanting to offer or accept a bet had to transfer
money into an account to back any losses, with the money
held in escrow by Betcha.com. The company charged fees
for offering or accepting bets, for proposing
counteroffers, or for premium placement on the site.
Bettors would submit claims after the event in question,
but the losing bettor always had 72 hours to opt out of
paying the debt. Failing to pay bets could negatively
affect a user's reputation on the site, which was
tracked with a number representing their "honor rating."
The state Supreme Court ruling overturned an earlier
state appeals court decision that Betcha.com hadn't
engaged in gambling. Its decision affirmed the company
possessed gambling records, a gross misdemeanor, and
transmitted gambling information over the Internet, a
lower-level felony.
The case is No. 82845-8,
Internet Community and Entertainment Corp. v. State.
Online Casino News Courtesy of
Infopowa
More news here.
Top of page |
Home |
News |
Forum |
Webcast |
Vortran |
Accredited Casinos |
Evil Ones |
Pitch a Bitch |
Online Gambling Resources |
Poker
|
