June 06 2014, by Steve Ruddock

Bad Actor Dispute Has California Online Poker In Doubt

altIf you expected nothing but smooth sailing on the journey to legal online poker in California, think again. California has fought for five years to reach an agreement when it comes to an online poker bill and that an agreement has proved elusive thus far.

After five years of squabbling over different details (some minor and some major) 2014 looked like California’s best chance to get something done, but old habits die hard and after what appeared to be a good start the disagreements have once again festered to the surface.

PokerStars at center of it all

While there may still be some lingering debate over minor, somewhat inconsequential issues, there is also one serious roadblock slowing things down like a cop car sitting on the side of the highway, the agreement between PokerStars and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Commerce Casino, the Bicycle Casino, and Hawaiian Gardens.

The agreement would allow PokerStars to return to the US online poker market, supplying the above mentioned entities with their online poker platform.

Stars is widely considered to be the best online poker provider in the industry by just about any metric. PokerStars is not just the best though, they are the best and it’s not even closed for second place.

Because of this, the agreement is not sitting well with any California gaming tribe or card room not named Morongo, Bicycle Casino, Commerce Casino, and Hawaiian Gardens, as they fear the presence of PokerStars will tip the scales completely to the side of PokerStars and its allies.

13 Tribes vs. PokerStars and their allies

In an effort to keep PokerStars out of the market a coalition of 13 tribes (13 of the most politically influential tribes) has introduced what they are calling a “unified” online poker bill that combines the two bills currently sitting in the California Assembly and California Senate and hashes out every issue including keeping PokerStars out of California with a “bad actor” clause that prohibits any company from receiving a California online poker license if they accepted a wager after December 31, 2006 — a category PokerStars falls squarely into.

If you would like to make your head spin you can read the bill (provided you speak legalese) here: Draft Poker Bill

The inclusion of a “bad actor” clause in their unified bill, after PokerStars and their California allies specifically warned that a bad actor clause would be a deal breaker and potentially lead to litigation, elicited the following response from PokerStars et al.

Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Commerce Club, Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Bicycle Casino and The Rational Group Coalition Response to 13 Tribe Announcement and Proposed Amendments to iPoker Legislation

  • We support legislation that would allow Californians to play online poker on well-regulated websites owned by California’s existing trusted gaming partners and operated by the most qualified and suitable companies in the industry.

  • We believe the legislative process should be used to establish a strong regulatory system that ensures stringent consumer protection, consumer choice and maximum revenue for the state.

  • However, we strongly oppose the so-called “bad actor” language that is nothing other than a blatant attempt to provide certain interests with an unfair competitive advantage by arbitrarily locking out trusted iPoker brands. We will vigorously oppose any legislation that includes this language.

  • These provisions in the Tribal coalition’s proposed amendments that are solely intended to lock out certain providers violate both the U.S. and California constitutions.

  • The tribal coalition amendments would exclude from participation, for purely anti-competitive reasons, companies that have never admitted or been convicted of wrongdoing, are duly licensed in jurisdictions around the world, and have set the gold standard in the online poker industry for game and financial integrity and player satisfaction.

  • At the same time, the legislation would not exclude companies or individuals that clearly have operated illegal California-facing casino wagering and sports betting sites and that have admitted to breaking the law.

  • Make no mistake, we believe strongly that all licensees and operators should meet the highest standards of accountability and suitability.

  • We believe the job of determining suitability should be left with the existing regulators – the CA Gambling Control Commission and the Attorney General’s Bureau of Gambling Control, using the Gambling Control Act’s existing standards that these regulators have been successfully applying for many years.

  • We look forward to working with all stakeholders and with members of the Legislature to craft a final bill that will best serve the interests and needs of all Californians– and not just those who would use the Legislature to protect them from fair competition.

Needless to say, this battle is far from over.

Related articles