Should a game of skill rather than a game of chance still be classified as gambling?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is certainly not providing any concrete clarity.
What is the definition of gambling? Does it include poker? If anything, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s reversal today of the lower court’s ruling in U.S. v. Lawrence DiCristina may make it more difficult to conclusively answer either question.
According to a new report from Forbes, Republican Representative Joe Barton, who introduced The Internet Poker Freedom Act of 2013 last month, mentions the aforementioned case in the act stating:
“There is uncertainty about the laws of the United States governing Internet poker, though not about laws governing Internet sports betting. In United States v. DiCristina a Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that poker is a game in which skill is the predominant factor in determining the outcome and that in passing the Illegal Gambling Businesses Act, Congress only intended to criminalize clear games of chance.”
The Second Circuit’s decision does not interfere with the lower court’s ruling that poker is a game of skill. However, Chicago Gambling Law attorney, Mark Lavery, says that the decision proves that skill does not matter and poker is still gambling.
“The ‘game of skill’ argument to support the legality of poker was a lie perpetrated by Online Poker companies to deceive consumers into depositing money on their gambling Internet sites,” Lavery continues. “I think this decision renders the skill argument a dead letter for loophole gambling like online poker and the so-called emerging ‘Daily Fantasy Sports’ craze. This ruling should not have an Impact on the Internet Poker Freedom Act. That bill tries to legalize what is illegal gambling in almost all states — online poker.”
Join the Conversation