Nearly all the casinos who have opted out so far are based primarily in other markets. There have been a couple of Asian-based groups, and a couple from the UK and Europe.
Any group that has a strong or majority US customer base will not take this step unless they absolutely have to. At most they'll just order their execs to stay out of the US.
I think that is a sensible assessment, with which I agree. The U.S. market is still a very important one imo, although business in other regions is being built up with more energy now due to the antics of US legislators and enforcers - no sense in having all your eggs in one uncertain basket, however attractive that basket may be.
The federal authorities in the US have shown us before that they are prepared to use intimidatory strategies.
Look at the impact that their tactics had on Internet gambling advertising last year, and they didn't take a single publication to court - it was achieved through officially implied "you may be committing a criminal offence" style threats.
The results of their current activities (at least on the face of it) will convince the DoJ that they are being effective in terms of damage to overseas companies, turning away Americans and deterring offshore personnel from visiting the States, but at the end of the day they will have to prove their cases in a court of law....and those politicians wouldn't be trying to pass legislation if they were really convinced present law is strong enough to stand up to stern legal contest.
The active involvement of states like Louisiana in going after offshore execs is a disturbing fresh trend, and the scare effect has been as effective as if this had been an international federal initiative - the seeds of new anti-online gambling strategies may lie within that experience if it was widely applied across a significant number of states (there are eight with specifically anti-online gambling laws I think) But as The Bloke says, execs will simply avoid visiting the US of A - inconvenient but not fatal, and certainly not conducive to a sensible end solution for all parties.
The question of effective enforcement is being glossed over, too and that will be a whole issue in itself, with the banks already expressing very serious reservations about the role that the legislators want to impose on them, and the sensitivities that must surround any suggestion of tampering with ISPs and the freedom of the Internet.
Still on topic, the political phone-in on the 12th of this month initiated by the PPA seems to have had some impact, judging by early reports. Nothing like a good barrage of mail and phone calls from angry constituents to illustrate the strength of opposition and get the attention of a legislator!
