dominique

http://online.casinocity.com/FirstAmendment/



This will be very interesting, and it will change the entire industry one way or another. Keep an eye on this one!

blackjackguy

Well, at least we will soon have an answer to all of our questions

That's either a good or a bad thing, depending on the verdict. This lawsuit will have a MAJOR impact on the market in the US.

Casino City

Nothing is ever certain, but we are as confident as it is possible to be about the outcome of this case.

The lawyer that is representing us in this case is Barry Richard. Barry is an extremely well respected constitutional law attorney who has successfuly argued three cases before the United States Supreme Court. His most public case was the 2000 presidential election litigation where he succesfully represented President George W. Bush, winning him the election.

If you would like to see more details, or would like to sign-up to receive news alerts from us as the case develops, just visit Online.CasinoCity.com/FirstAmendment

Michael Corfman, President & CEO, Casino City, Inc.

blackjackguy

I hope you're right

If your company wins this case, I may need to send you a commission!

Blackjackguy

steve_badger

If you are game Casino City, I'd be curious to hear why sportsbook advertising was so specifically included in the lawsuit. I would think it makes what should have been a slam dunk into something no better than 50/50.

Casino City

Our legal counsel does not believe that sports betting has a negative effect on the First Amendment arguments. The legality of sports betting is certainly more questionable, but it is not necessary for something to be legal for commercial free speech related to it to be constitutionally protected. Also, we are taking this action primarily as a web portal site that has a worldwide audience. If we were specifically targeting US citizens that could pose complications, but that is not the case - we target a worldwise audience. We also include gaming activities that are definitely legal in the US. For example, if you visit our site, and look for online gaming in the US jurisdiction, you will find that there are a couple web site we list that allow betting on horse racing, which is definitely legal for citizens in many states.

In our case, we are a Louisiana corporation with our advertising servers located in the state of Lousiana. Louisiana state law outlaws at least some types of online gaming, but also specifically says that it is legal to advertise such gaming. Thus our advertising activities are explicitly permitted under state law - for both casinos and sportsbooks. The fact that we are located in the jurisdiction of the 5th circuit court also means that we have a circuit court ruling that the wire act does not apply to casino games. The same is not true of sportsbooks, but then our case is not dependent on the legality of the activity. Rather it is based entirely on commercial free speech considerations guaranteed under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Bottom line is that we firmly believe our First Amendment case is not weakened by including sportsbooks. Further, as a company we want to be permitted to advertise both. I also feel the distinction is pretty stupid anyway, so I am much happier with the idea of helping to remove the distinction at least with respect to web advertising.

Gamblegirl

Because of the implications involved further questions and comments should be made in the main section of the forums, in my opinion. A greater audience reads those posts.

steve_badger

Thanks for the answer.

Jetset

GG makes a sound point - this case is of interest to everyone involved in online gambling, and particularly to the folks in the US who are effectively having their rights usurped by these intimidatory DoJ tactics. Kudos to CC for having the balls to stand up and fight the issue.

Although this case will give rise to widespread comment and reportage, I hope that Casino City keeps the fora informed on the progress of the case, too - for the reasons above.