PokerStars Argues California Regulators Should Determine Suitability of Online Poker Applicants

California tribes and card rooms are discussing a proposal to legalize intrastate poker. They are calling for a number of provisions, including a bad actors clause that would bar PokerStars from receiving a license. PokerStars has stated that it opposes a bad actors provision, but would respect the decisions of the state gaming regulator.

Eric Hollreiser, Head of Corporate Communications for the Rational Group, said that PokerStars respects the judgment of the California Gambling Control Commission. Hollreiser said that the state gaming regulator has successfully overseen the gaming industry for nearly two decades. He feels that the gaming commission is more qualified than state lawmakers to determine the suitability of online gambling applicants.

Nevada has a bad actor provision which bars PokerStars from applying for a license for 10 years. New Jersey doesn't have such a clause, but the Division of Gaming Enforcement has told PokerStars that it cannot apply for a license for two years. Leslie Lohse, Chairperson of the California Tribal Business Alliance, said that PokerStars knowingly violated the Unlawful Internet Enforcement Gambling Act. Lohse feels that PokerStars and other companies that violated U.S. gaming laws should be barred from participating in California as well.

Hollreiser countered Lohse's argument, stating that Pokerstars never violated online gambling laws. He said that the appeals court and the Department of Justice have both confirmed that the Wire Act didn't change the legality of any form of online gambling. Hollreiser also pointed out that PokerStars has received licenses in nearly a dozen jurisdictions across the world. He said that this proves that gaming regulators are more than qualified to make determinations of eligibility.