Some Rival Casinos No Longer Accepting New US Players

One of the DoJ spokespersons revealed that they are working with Interpol in the pursuit of these executives; not sure what the rules of engagement are to get Interpol to assist, especially if there is a jurisdictional debate.

The fact that the charges are centred on bank fraud and deception may be persuasive.

I doubt the Irish government will be too keen to upset a company like FTP, they must be investing millions into tax and employment
 
The DoJ have quickly gone on public record about this, yet STILL not a peep about EWX, and that was 4 months ago.

I wonder what else has happened that we haven't heard about yet.

Rival may only be stopping new registrations, but this is probably only the start, just as it was when Microgaming stopped accepting new US players, and it turned out to be just the start of a long campaign of attrition that lead to the "grandfathered" players getting less and less at each new move.

Maybe the next step is all existing US players being moved to a single Rival casino designed mainly to manage their decline through "natural wastage" as players left, and were not replaced.
 
I doubt the Irish government will be too keen to upset a company like FTP, they must be investing millions into tax and employment

I also think you Brits also have good reason to be angry. The UGIEA cost the UK a huge amount of money and now I see that poker rooms registered in IoM seems to be a principal target of the DOJ.
 
I also think you Brits also have good reason to be angry. The UGIEA cost the UK a huge amount of money and now I see that poker rooms registered in IoM seems to be a principal target of the DOJ.

Many Brits are angry that the US got Britain tangled up in their Iraqi adventure, and many believe that this happened because our Labour government were trying too hard to please the Bush administration. The rest of the EU did NOT go in with the original invasion.

It seems the US have some kind of hold over the UK governments, who just don't want to do anything to threaten that "special relationship".

Small countries taking a stand will not make much difference, but if the EU got together and decided to take some "tit for tat" sanctions against the US a difference could be made.

For some reason, the UK is about the ONLY country blocked from viewing YouTube in it's entirety, because we seem to have backed down to the US over copyright issues, yet it seems to be OK for everybody ELSE to view this content, yet the "issues" are the same. This contrasts with the fight Antigua put up; they threatened to retaliate by refusing to enforce US copyright laws against websites set up under Antiguan jurisdiction, which would have meant that the likes of "Pirate bay" could move their servers to Antigua, and become more or less "untouchable".
It's a shame that Antigua had their bluff called by the US, and to my knowledge the threat has not become fact.

The DoJ are really throwing their weight around, so we can only hope they break something they shouldn't have, and find themselves in an international legal mess.

The US have STILL not managed to shut down all this "illegal file sharing", so what makes them think they will ever manage to shut down ALL the "illegal internet gambling" they are going after.

What about ad-supported casinos?

Rather than deposit and withdraw money, US players earn "loyalty points" for viewing content such as adverts, doing surveys, etc. These points are then used as "casino credits", and when the player decides to "withdraw", they are paid in goods or shopping vouchers, thus no actual UIGEA-outlawed transactions take place.

These points could also be earned on purchases over the internet, not the fake ones currently used, but for real goods and services, where these "casino loyalty points" are awarded in the same way that Airmiles can be collected.

Lastly, it can be made possible for peer to peer exchange of these points for goods, services, or even money.

This would not help the high rollers, but many of the low rolling players could get along with this model.
 
Sorry VWM,
Seems I hit sore spot.

I wasn't thinking about all the other political stuff, only online gambling. But I see your point. A lot of us in the States did not want to be involved in that Iraqi 'adventure' either ('adventure' is not the word I would have chosen).
 
Didn't the South American countries go to the WTO to contest the ban on gambling by the states? I thought it was still pending but I do remember Antigua threatening to open up the black market trade, like cigarettes and pirated goods like VWM said, the US would be powerless to stop that through fairtrade laws.

It's just a joke, I have a number of acquaintances in the US desperate to play but I don't trust anyone to handle their money, so I encourage them to go to Vegas instead. If only 3Dice had an affiliate program worthy of the effort... :rolleyes:
 
Sorry VWM,
Seems I hit sore spot.

I wasn't thinking about all the other political stuff, only online gambling. But I see your point. A lot of us in the States did not want to be involved in that Iraqi 'adventure' either ('adventure' is not the word I would have chosen).

It's not all political. The WTO free trade agreement is a joke, since the US treat Britain as "second class" when it comes to viewing such things as pop videos on YouTube. We are blocked, but most other places in the world can view them. YouTube is effectively being censored by big US interests, even though these media are free to view elsewhere, so don't really make money other than through the adverts.

It should be up to the UK government whether sites such as YouTube are censored for us, not the government of the USA.

Even the NEWS is blocked, something that becomes obvious when I can't view some of the links posted by other CM members about interesting items of world news.

Despite this, the US government is DEMANDING that the UK government snoop on our internet use, and fine us for viewing this content by other means that still work.

This is "big business intererests" controlling legislation passed by the US government, and is simply another example of the protectionism that lies behind the onslaught against UK companies that provide a LEGAL service in the jurisdictions they operate from.


"free trade" has to work BOTH ways, but currently it seems the US is "cherry picking" the parts of the WTO agreement that suits them, and complaining when WE don't play ball by allowing free & full access to US businesses in the EU market, even though some of what they sell online is legal in the US, but NOT here in the UK.

Protectionism in the US will cost UK players money, since the operators will make less profit, and thus be unable to carry on giving us decent offers.

I bet when the US brings in regulation for their home grown online operators, they will demand access to the EU markets under these same WTO rules they themselves don't see fit to follow.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Click here for Red Cherry Casino

Meister Ratings

Back
Top