Online Casino BTDino

The blog for the online casino btdino contest

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Casino city

Ironically, the ruling is practically a green light for Casino City to continue doing the advertising that it does, but it does nothing to clarify the ability of larger media advertisers--such as members of the NAB--to advertise for offshore gambling providers.

Casino City believes the court has erred and intends to appeal the ruling. "We have every intention of filing an appeal," Patrick O'Brien, a lawyer for Casino City said. "We think the case was wrongly decided on the law and we expect to win on the appeal."

But even if Casino City gets a reverse decision on issue of standing, it still faces another massive hurdle: The court also declared yesterday that Casino City has no claim for a First Amendment violation.

Casino City has argued that the overseas companies for which it advertises are lawful, but the court points out that it does not allege that it is legal for those companies to accept wagers from United States bettors. The court notes that the Wire Act prohibits the use of the Internet to transmit betting information and states that it is illegal to aid and abet "the commission of any offense against the United States." The first prong of the Central Hudson Test, which is called into play for First Amendment advertising cases, states that there is no right to advertise illegal activity.