Kentucky court rules against online gambling
Monday, September 27th, 2010I didn’t want to write about Kentucky again. I think it’s mostly a good state that gets a bad rap for a position on online gambling that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. So while other gambling writers are quick to beat down the Bluegrass State, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. But then Kentucky’s NCAA football team was routed by the Florida Gators, the team I hate more than any other. So while this may be kicking them while they’re down, I’m mad at Kentucky at the moment, so here goes…
In the most recent decision in a Kentucky court case that dates back to 2008, the state Supreme Court refused to pass judgment and then kicked the case back down to the circuit court where the case had started. You may remember the case where the state of Kentucky seized domains for some online gambling websites, an action that is being fought by the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC).
Earlier this year, circuit court Judge Wingate ruled that the lawyers for iMEGA and IGC could not represent the domains and that the actual owners must be present. Since the owners were not present and a part of the proceedings, the case was dismissed. iMEGA and IGC then brought the case further up the ladder, where it eventually reached the state Supreme Court. There, they submitted affidavits from Pocket Kings and Yatahay Limited that affirmed they were the owners of the domain names Full Tilt Poker and TruePoker.com.
The Supreme Court then said that the new information had never been given to the circuit court, so they kicked it back down to them rather than making a ruling. While that might not necessarily be a bad thing, it’s clear that the Supreme Court is skeptical about the ownership of Pocket Kings and Yatahay Limited. In the order that passed the case back down to the circuit court, the Supreme Court stated that the lower court had “ruled correctly thus far in this case regarding standing issues.” They said that “until the circuit court determines that the domain owners or registrants are properly before the court, no one has established standing to proceed on a writ action.”
Only time will tell what will result from this decision. In all likelihood, this case will eventually go back to the state Supreme Court anyway.
