Betcha Loses Its Big Bet: Court Now Says It's Illegal Gambling
from the betcha-knew-that dept
Back in 2007, we wrote about a startup that was trying to sneak its way through anti-online gambling laws by trying to squeeze through a loophole. The site, called Betcha, would let people bet each other on various things, but which let bettors renege on any bet if they lost. Of course, doing so would give you negative feedback on your profile. However, the site argued that because anyone could bail out of a bet, it wasn't illegal gambling. Authorities in Washington State (who have one of the strictest anti-online gambling laws around) disagreed. A district court said the site was illegal... but an appeals court reversed, saying that the presence of the renege button mean there was "nothing risked" and thus, it did not meet the definition of gambling.Like the ups-and-downs of gambling, however, the next roll of the dice hasn't been kind to Betcha. Eric Goldman is reporting that the state Supreme Court has reversed again and found the site guilty of illegal gambling by a unanimous 9-0 vote:
The court's opinion makes it clear that expansive anti-gambling laws leave almost no room for entrepreneurial yet legal Internet gambling enterprises. Here, Betcha is tripped up by the definition of "bookmaking," defined as "accepting bets, upon the outcome of future contingent events, as a business or in which the bettor is charged a fee or "vigorish" for the opportunity to place a bet." This strikes at Betcha's model of charging the parties to communicate with each other regarding betting. The court is not swayed by Betcha's formalist argument that because the loser could renege on the bet, the wager did not meet the statutory definitions for gambling. The court says the bookmaking definition applies whether the bets are made for money or not.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We do NOT just make a business illegal because of that (including the drug trade). Unfortunately, the courts have punked out every single time this has come up in front of them, and the Supreme Court keeps on refusing to hear the cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How About Calling It A “Futures Market”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.walottery.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just set the sight up as an investment in futures where you can sell the futures at any time. I will but the Bengals going to the playoffs so the more games they win the more I can resell my future but if they keep loosing then the selling price drops. Just like when buying on margin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also the wording of the law is so crazy vague that a lot of normal internet business could also be marked as a gambling site. Dating sites are a crap shoot for instance but the site owner takes a cut before you can write any messages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, it looks like they just can't charge on the opportunity to place the bet...so does that mean they can legally take a cut of the winnings? So long as placing the bet is free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so games with fake currency are illegal now?
ya see the flaw here....if no money really changes hands and its say an investment game where you invest cash to pass time , they are in affect saying this is illegal cause your betting on an outcome because of your fake currency.
tired but someone will get the idea of the serious flaw in logic by not one judge not 3 or 5 BUT buy all 9.
it would be one thing to just say that they are trying to loophole it and use law to close the loophole, but to word it and the decision in a fashion that could potentially affect non gambling sites is to say the least disheartening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is investing in stocks not gambling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is investing in stocks not gambling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sod Off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]