The Swedish high court has released its long-awaited ruling on whether poker is a game of skill.  Sort of.  The Court held that poker is a game of skill when played in tournament form, but a game of luck when played in cash game form.  Apparently, the sample size of hands you are forced to play was the determining factor.  Strange.  But here’s the kicker.  Swedish cash game players were happy with the decision because it meant that their livelihood was not deemed a profession, which are taxable.  Got to love Sweden.

Now this is cool.  Some high-ranking judges in Sweden were convinced to take poker lessons as part of their adjudication of a trial involving an arguably illegal poker tournament.  The issue of course is whether poker is a game of skill or a game of chance.  The lesson was intended to teach the judiciary that poker is a game of skill, with luck determining only the cards that are dealt and not the outcome of the hand.  Now if only American judges would follow our Scandinavian counterparts’ lead.

First, the good news.  We can add Maryland to the growing list of states, especially in the Northeast, that will consider legalizing poker.  A vote by the public on any legislation could be made as early as November. 

Now, the bad news.  Legislation in Sweden that is intended to regulate its gambling industry, in part by permitting outside companies to offer sports betting, has been delayed.  Lawyers are quibbling over details regarding penalties for violations.  Lawyers.

Christopher Costigan – Poker Players Alliance Drops the Ball

This article criticizes the PPA’s priorities, particularly their insistence to demarcate skill and luck in poker, despite South Carolina’s recent ruling that poker is a game of skill.  It posits that they should instead work with the Interactive Media and Gaming Association (iMEGA) to solve the growing problem of banking institutions cutting ties with payment processors responsible for distributing online poker funds.

http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-news/poker-players-alliance-drops-ball-101209.html

GamingTechLaw

If you are interested in Italian gaming law, a lawyer named Giulio Coraggio runs a blog that specializes in the subject.  I suggest you check it out, as it contains interesting content related to Italian Internet gaming as well as updates on the live gaming market.

http://www.gamingtechlaw.com/

Swedish Gaming Law on the Point of Stupidity

This article argues that Swedish laws that banned virtual stock trading relegate stock trading to a game of chance, and are therefore somewhat legally analogous to poker.  The purpose of this analogy, of course, is to argue that neither are games of chance, exclusively.  For a state’s well-being it is economically crucial to keep currency at home, and Sweden is one of many countries, including the US, to not regulate their market.

http://blog.nordenfelt.com/2009/10/12/swedish-gamling-law-on-the-point-of-stupidness/

The EU is, for the most part, supportive of gambling, but is not without conflicting interests. EU laws regarding the freedom of companies to offer their services within members state provide the illusion of inclusion for Internet gaming, as long as the companies have some measures in place to protect the consumer. However, when delving deeper into EU law, the situation becomes much more complex and grey.

It all begins with Article 49 of the EC Treaty, which sets out the freedoms allowed for companies and individuals to provide their goods and services to any country in the EU. Article 49 states, “restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Community shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a State of the Community.” Based on only this, Internet gaming companies should be allowed to offer their services to any country in the EU, so long as they have a base within an EU country.

However, the European Court of Justice has made rulings regarding gambling that appear to go against Article 49. These exceptions generally apply to lotteries and sports betting, but could have an effect on poker. The first instance of the European Court of Justice ruling in favor of state run monopolies occurred in the 1999 Zenatti case. The court ruled that if restrictions were in place on foreign gambling companies in order to protect consumers from fraud, and limit the amount of gambling promotion to protect social policies, then the act of states creating monopolies could not be seen as violating Article 49. However, the argument that restrictions are in place to prevent crime must have its own exception. That is, that the country’s national court must have ruled that betting restrictions are being put in place because they feel foreign gambling companies are not providing consumers enough protection from fraud.

Because individual EU countries are allowed to establish their own laws regarding gambling, Article 49 is less clear. Another more recent example of a EU member state winning a case that goes against Article 49 is Bwin versus Portugal’s state gambling monopoly. On Tuesday, September 8, 2009, the European Court of Justice ruled in favor of Portugal’s state monopoly based on the exception that restrictions were in place to protect bettors from fraud. To confuse matters more, the EU has ruled against Italy’s attempts at protecting their state monopolies, which is now forcing Italy to open up its gaming market to foreign companies.

Since 2006, the European Commission has challenged the laws of a number of EU member states’ gaming restrictions, accusing them of infringements. In 2006, they made inquiries into the restrictions that Demark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Austria, France, and the Netherlands were trying to enforce. In 2007, the Commission took action against the restrictions being enforced by Greece, Sweden, France, Hungary, Finland and Denmark. 2008 saw more action by the Commission with challenges against Greece, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands. All of these proceedings by the Commission stem from Article 49 of the EC Treaty.

The exceptions allowed weaken the EU’s ability to enforce Article 49 of the EC Treaty, and is therefore a worry to Europeans that enjoy playing poker or participating in sports betting online. It seems that individual countries can protect their profits under the guise of preventing crime. With the European online gaming industry predicted to be worth 6.5 billion euros in 2009, their motive is clear. However, that does not make it right. While Internet gaming should be regulated with the genuine intention of protecting consumers, it does not mean that those consumers should not have the freedom to gamble with whom they choose.