At the beginning of June, 13 California tribes came to an agreement on a proposed online poker bill. This is a big step towards legal internet poker in the Golden State because, for the first time in five years, there’s a large consensus among tribal gaming interests.
Who’s not a part of this consensus, though? PokerStars and their partners, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Bicycle Casino, Commerce Club and Hawaiian Gardens Casino. This group is in staunch opposition to one key point of the bill, a “bad actor” clause that would shut out poker sites that operated in the US after December 31st, 2006, when the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) went into effect.
Fierce Response
PokerStars’ parent company, the Rational Group, and their four partners released a statement regarding the current online poker proposal. Not surprisingly, their statement begins by fully commending efforts to establish internet poker in California. However, they make no qualms about addressing their big issue with the recently proposed bill, as you can see from the following excerpt:
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.
[cont’d later] 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.
PokerStars’ Logic vs. Morality Argument
Aside from pointing out that many tribal gaming interests are merely trying to limit competition with a bad actor clause. The Rational Group also make another good point in their statement. Companies that “clearly have operated illegal California-facing casino wagering and sports betting sites” are not included under the bad actor language. This is just another indication that the tribes are solely focused on shutting out a poker site that would likely dominate the market.
Of course, logic doesn’t always hold much weight in legislative matters. This is especially the case when a group have the morality argument on their side. So far, PokerStars have been shut out of New Jersey and Nevada under the banner that they violated federal law, although the site never admitted to any wrongdoing. So it wouldn’t be a shock if Stars are once again left on the sideline when internet poker does get rolling in California.
However, this time around they have some very powerful allies in the Morongo Indians and three prominent card clubs. So maybe things will be different if the group can lobby the California government enough.