Does the United States Government Have a Handle on the Online Gambling Industry? Don’t Bet on It!

"If you thought 2004 was a big year for poker on TV sets and at card tables across this great country, you might want to peek into bedrooms and home offices. The number of people playing poker online passed 1.4 million in November [2004] and is growing by about 100,000 every month. In the 24 hours prior to my writing these words, online gamblers had wagered $150,723, 693." [1]

I. Introduction

Gambling is a longstanding, major entertainment industry in the United States. [2] Thanks to Al Gore and the advent of the Internet, [3] one need not travel to the oasis in the middle of the desert, i.e., Las Vegas, or the sensational boardwalk in Atlantic City to enjoy the full spectrum of traditional gambling experiences. The recent proliferation of sports betting and casino-style gambling websites make it possible for audiences across the globe to experience the thrill of gambling and wagering from the comfort of their own home or office. There are over 1800 Internet gambling websites currently in operation, most of which are based outside of the United States. [4] Revenue for online gambling reached more than $6 billion in 2004. Some estimates suggest that as much as 65% of this revenue came from the United States. [5] As the popularity of online gambling continues to grow, the issues surrounding its legality have yet to be resolved. Although the legitimacy of online gambling could easily be described as a global issue, this paper focuses on issues within the borders of the United States. Section II discusses the history of Internet gambling and its recent rise in popularity. Section III discusses the legality of online gambling in the context of current U.S. law. Section IV focuses on the potential liability incurred by those allowing online gambling sites to advertise on their homepage. Section V discusses potential solutions to the statutory quagmire we find ourselves in today and concludes online gambling should eventually be legalized and regulated.

II. The History of Internet Gambling

Given Americans' love of games of chance in general and the fact that over 200 million Americans have Internet access, it is no wonder that Internet gambling is now a major issue for the United States government. The history of online gambling in the U.S., however, is still as new as the Internet itself. In fact, it has been less than ten years since the United States government officially became interested in Internet gambling and the way it affects its citizens. [6]

Online gambling made its first appearance on the World Wide Web in 1995. At that time, there were only a handful of online gambling websites, generating roughly 300 million dollars in revenue. Since that date, the industry has grown at an alarming rate. Today there are somewhere between 1,800 and 2,000 gaming websites, taking in approximately 6 billion dollars each year. It is estimated as much as 60% of these revenues are derived from U.S. citizens. [7] Projected growth of the Internet gaming industry in 2003 was estimated at 43%. [8] At the same time, the overall gambling industry experienced a mere 6% rise in revenues. The bottom line is no business on the Internet earns more revenue than online gambling. Despite the profitability, and potential taxability, of such ventures, the U.S. has held firm in its condemnation of Internet gambling. As a result, most gambling websites are operated offshore and licensed by foreign governments, making U.S. regulation nearly impossible. [9]

III. Current Law

Traditionally, gambling regulation has been an issue legislated at the state level of government. Deriving their authority from the police power, each state in the U.S. has been free to develop its own policy, free from federal government restraint. However, with online gambling becoming more and more commonplace, the federal government has reasserted itself as the proper governing authority in the area. Under modern interstate commerce clause jurisprudence, the federal government has the authority to legislate in almost any area arguably affecting interstate commerce. Given the fact most online transactions involve data “traveling” across state lines, the federal government has sought more control over Internet gambling and is attempting to develop a national policy on the activity. [10]

Attaining an accurate picture of current online gambling law often requires a blend of both federal and state statutes and jurisprudence. As previously mentioned, where an Internet transaction crosses state lines, the federal government is free to legislate. That fact notwithstanding, federal statues often defer to the law of the particular states in which the relevant information was both sent and received in defining the legality of the transaction. [11] Therefore, in determining the lawfulness of a particular transaction, one should first look to the federal statutes, then inject applicable state law where appropriate.

Federal Law

The Wire Act

The federal government has taken the stance that Internet gambling, with a few exceptions, is illegal under the Wire Act of 1961. That Act provides:

Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. [12]

Several problems arise, however, in applying this statute to online gambling. First, the Act was obviously passed long before the advent of the Internet and therefore its applicability to online transactions is questionable. Second, the Act has been interpreted to apply only to sports betting and may not cover other online gambling activity such as card games and other casino-style games. Third, it contains a safe harbor provision, excluding transactions where the particular wager would have been legal in both the state in which the transmission was sent and received. Despite these shortcomings, the Wire Act is the only federal law that has been successfully used to convict a foreign gambling website proprietor.

The first problem, the Act’s applicability to online transactions, was most likely resolved in United States v. Cohen, decided in 2001. [13] There, Cohen, a United States citizen and bookmaker, moved to the Caribbean island of Antingua to establish a sports-betting company that specifically targeted customers within the United States through television and radio advertisements. In just the first fifteen months of operation, Cohen raked in an impressive $5.3 million from U.S. customers. The FBI investigated the operation by placing bets over the phone and Internet from October 1997 to March 1998. Cohen was charged and, after voluntarily surrendering himself to authorities, prosecuted and convicted for violation of the Wire Act. On appeal, Cohen argued that the jury was improperly instructed to disregard the safe-harbor provisions set forth in § 1084(b) of the Act. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that the safe harbor provision requires that the wagering be legal in both the origin and destination of the transmission. The safe harbor provision was therefore inapplicable as bets were accepted from U.S. citizens transmitting from states wherein gambling was illegal.

Cohen further argued that his system was set up in a way that the "transmission between [his company] and its customers contained only information that enabled [the company] itself to place bets entirely from customer accounts located in Antigua." Thus, according to Cohen, there was never a true transmission under the Wire Act because no act was illegally occurring within the U.S. The court again disagreed, holding that a transmission between a bettor and the online gambling company in Antigua over the telephone or the Internet, to signal the placement of a bet, constituted a transmission under § 1084. Therefore, an illegal transaction occurred at the user and operator end and Cohen’s conviction stood. The United States Supreme Court did not grant certiorari.

But, while it appears the Wire Act has been interpreted to encompass some online gambling activities, it is unlikely the Act can be applied to non-sports gambling. By its own language, the Act seems limited to “sport[ing] events or contests.” [14]

In re Mastercard Int’l Inc. involved some unlucky gamblers who had incurred a significant amount of debt on their credit cards as a result of online casino games. [15] The indebted gamblers brought suit against Mastercard and Visa, alleging those companies were aiding and abetting in conduct that violated the Wire Act. The Fifth Circuit, in holding the credit card companies free of liability, expressly stated, “the Wire Act does not prohibit non-sports Internet gambling.”

It seems then, while the Wire Act may solve some of the government’s problems when it comes to battling online gambling, it is a patchwork solution at best. If the government wishes to curtail online gambling altogether, a new statute is needed: a statute written with Internet gambling, specifically, in mind.

The Travel Act

Another federal statute that could potentially be used to prosecute those engaged in illegal online gambling is the Travel Act, passed in 1961. The Travel Act provides:

Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity, or commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity, or otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity… shall be fined under this title [or] imprisoned…. [16]

The Travel Act was initially passed in an effort to help states combat organized crime and makes it a crime to travel in interstate commerce in furtherance of an “unlawful activity.” [17] An unlawful activity, under the Act, is defined by applicable state law and expressly includes “any business enterprise involving [illegal] gambling.” Presumably, one could argue gambling over the Internet violates the Travel Act because an interstate facility, the Internet, is being used to conduct a state prohibited transaction. Considering the fact courts have deemed the use of mail, telephone, telegraph, newspaper, credit cards, and tickertapes all meet the use of “facilit[ies] in interstate or foreign commerce” requirement, [18] it is likely the Internet would also be covered. Even so, to date, no such argument has been made with any success.

The Illegal Gambling Business Act

Passed in 1970, in an effort to reduce organized crime, Congress passed the Illegal Gambling Business Act. [19] The statute was passed pursuant to the federal government’s power under the commerce clause, based on the theory “large-scale, illegal gambling operations financed organized crime, which, in turn, has a significant impact on interstate commerce.” The Act makes it a crime to “establish… a gambling business which (1) is in violation of state or local law where it is conducted, (2) involves five or more persons, and (3) remains in substantially continuous operation for more than thirty days or has a gross revenue of $2,000 in any given day." This Act’s applicability to the Internet gambling industry, however, appears limited. First, the Act only encompasses gambling activity deemed illegal by the state in which the business is situated. As previously mentioned, most Internet gambling websites are located offshore, in countries wherein the activity is, in fact, legal. Second, the Act targets only the proprietors of gambling businesses, not individual bettors. Thus, in the context of offshore gambling websites, there is no party to the activity left to prosecute. As a result, it is doubtful U.S. courts will ever interpret the Illegal Gambling Business Act in such a way as to significantly affect the online gambling industry.

State Law

Historically, gambling regulation has been an issue reserved for state legislation under the Tenth Amendment. [20] As previously mentioned, while federal statutes make it a crime to engage in unlawful activity which crosses state lines, what actually constitutes an “unlawful activity,” in the gambling context, typically depends on the law of the various states that may be involved. All states have some form of constitutional or statutory law that either (1) prohibits gambling, (2) limits the type of gambling allowed, or (3) authorizes certain state-sponsored or licensed gambling. At least forty-four states have state-run lotteries. Twenty-nine states allow actual casino gambling in either conventional commercial casinos or Native-American casinos. [21] Nevertheless, state gambling regulation across the United States is nowhere close to uniform. [22] Therefore, situations must be approached on a case-by-case basis, carefully analyzing applicable state law in order to determine if the underlying crime element has been established.

For example, states like Hawaii and Utah prohibit all forms of gambling. [23] This includes casinos, slot machines, and state-run lotteries. On the other end of the spectrum, New Jersey has authorized a state lottery, casinos, racetracks, slot machines, and is also considering legalizing sports gambling. [24]

The state of Nevada provides an interesting case study, [25] especially in terms of Internet gambling. Obviously, Nevada permits commercial casinos. Not surprisingly, however, Nevada has become the first state to formally distinguish conventional casino gambling from online gambling, most likely in an effort to prevent a loss in gambling-generated income. In 1997, Nevada passed legislation specifically prohibiting its residents from participating in online gambling. The legislation criminalized the conduct of users who make online bets as well as operators who accepts online wagers from a person within Nevada. However, the statute also contains a significant exception, stating the law was inapplicable in situations where the bet was “transmitted to a licensed person or establishment in Nevada.” In 2001, additional legislation passed granting the Nevada Gaming Commission the ability to “adopt regulations governing the licensing and operation of Internet gambling if the Commission determines that interactive gaming can be operated in compliance with all applicable laws.”

It appears Nevada is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Despite the strong language of the 1997 statute outlawing online gambling by Nevada residents, the state appears to have preserved the ability to profit from, or perhaps even monopolize, the online gambling market in Nevada. This behavior marks a significant departure from the conventional attitude of the states.

There are only three legal forms of gambling in Georgia: (1) The Georgia Lottery, (2) raffles operated by tax-exempt, non-profit organizations, and (3) Bingo. [26] The legality of online gambling has not been sufficiently tested, but initial indications suggest strong opposition. In 2005, a Georgia bill that would have allowed the state to sell lottery tickets online failed to pass. The suggestion of online lottery purchases added fuel to the fire of an ongoing divisive controversy surrounding Georgia’s lottery system. Opponents of the lottery system view the lottery as a “tax on the poor” and feel that “expand[ing] it into homes will have an even more direct impact on families.” [27]

IV. Aiding and Abetting

The owners and operators of Internet gambling websites, along with the patrons placing their bets on these sites, are not the only potential targets of federal and state gambling statutes. Media trade groups and other American businesses advertising the availability of offshore online gambling websites may also find themselves in the government’s crosshairs. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has been warning such groups that their conduct may well constitute aiding and abetting illegal operations. [28]

The DOJ first implemented its plan to prevent American companies from advertising online gambling websites in June 2003, when the DOJ sent letters to trade groups representing major broadcasters and publishers. In its letter, the DOJ advised these trade groups to warn their respective members that they “could be violating [federal] law by displaying advertisements on behalf of offshore casinos” and they “could be seen as ‘aiding and abetting’ the activities of the [online] casinos.” Soon after, the United States Attorney’s Office convened a grand jury in St. Louis to investigate several American companies that were doing business with offshore casinos. [29] Millions of dollars were seized during the investigation and, as a result, many major broadcasters, including Infinity Broadcasting and Clear Channel Communications, stopped accepting advertisements from online casinos and sportsbooks. Shortly thereafter, Internet industry giants Yahoo! and Google followed suit. Yahoo! acknowledged that “a lack of clarity in the environment made gambling advertising ‘too risky.’” [30] With very little case law on the books, however, it is difficult to say how much risk actually exists for American companies that choose to advertise for online gambling websites.

Criminal liability in these cases seems to turn on whether advertisements for legal offshore Internet gambling sites are protected by the First Amendment as commercial speech or, per the government's assertions, Internet gambling is illegal and, therefore, advertising websites performing this function are actually aiding and abetting illegal activity. Traditionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has not been particularly protective of commercial speech when it is used to advertise for vice activities, such as gambling, alcohol, and cigarettes. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has rejected these exceptions and granted an increasing amount of First Amendment protection upon all commercial speech. [31] Through a series of curtailments to what used to be a complete prohibition of all gambling advertisements, the government now does permit the advertising of various forms of gambling such as lotteries and casinos, sanctioned in some states, over the television and radio, even in states where such activity is illegal. The government does, however, continue to prohibit such advertisements in print form. [32]

The First Amendment Argument

If the mere act of advertising offshore gambling is commercially protected speech under the First Amendment, such advertisers would be insulated from criminal prosecution. The framework for determining what “commercial speech” is and is not protected was set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York. [33] The Supreme Court there developed a four-part test. Commercial speech is to be protected under the First Amendment if: (1) it concerns lawful activity and is not misleading; (2) the governmental interest in prohibiting the speech is substantial; (3) the governmental regulation at issue directly advances the interest; and (4) the regulation is no more extensive than necessary to serve the interest.

To see the evolution of the Supreme Courts analysis under the Central Hudson framework compare Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328, decided in 1986, United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U.S. 418, decided in 1993, Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, also decided in 1993, Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S. 476, decided in 1995, Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, decided in 1996, and, finally, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, decided in 2001. Over the years, the Supreme Court has shifted from what was originally a very deferential form of legislative review to a strict scrutiny approach, placing a great burden on the government to justify its legislation.

(1) Is Online Gambling Lawful Activity?

In U.S. v. Cohen, the Second Circuit took a stance against Internet gambling. [34] Several other courts have also indicated that offshore Internet casinos that take bets from U.S. customers are violating the Wire Act. [35] This precedent, along with the language of the statute, provide strong support for assertion that online gambling sportsbooks are illegal under the Wire Act, but, as indicated previously, the Wire Act provides a patchwork solution at best.

In fact, the Fifth Circuit established precedent that supports the proposition that online gambling is not illegal when it stated, “because the Wire Act does not prohibit non-sports Internet gambling, any debts incurred in connection with such gambling are not illegal.” [36] Thus, it logically follows that any advertising occurring in connection with “such gambling” is not illegal.

The bottom line is that the legality of the activity of online gambling has yet to be resolved. That issue aside, much of the argument over the advertisement of online gambling concerns the amount of deference to be shown federal and state legislatures in regards to the remaining three parts of the test.

(2) Is the Governmental Interest in Prohibiting Online Gambling Advertisements Substantial?

The federal government could satisfy step two of the Central Hudson test if it could demonstrate a “substantial interest” in reducing online gambling advertising. As mentioned previously, the Supreme Court has become increasingly skeptical of the government’s alleged interests in regulating commercial speech related to ads for land-based gambling. Thus far, however, the Court has always held the government’s interest in reducing such speech “substantial.” [37] A strong argument can be made that the government’s interest in regulating advertising for online casinos is even more compelling than in the context of land-based gambling because of the distinctive nature of online gambling. Online gambling may bring about dangerous social consequences that are not applicable to land-based gambling, such as consumer fraud, money laundering, the inability to prevent minors from gambling, and the inability to combat compulsive gambling.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s recent skepticism of governmental interests in regulating gambling speech and the proliferation of pro-gambling statutes enacted by Congress in recent years, weighs against the substantiality of the government’s interest in regulating advertising for online gambling. [38]

(3) Does the Governmental Regulation at Issue Directly Advance the Interest?

The third step of the Central Hudson test would probably prove difficult for the government. This step requires that the government’s regulation of commercial speech “directly advance” its proffered interest. To do so, the government would need to provide evidence of harm and evidence that the restriction will serve to materially alleviate that harm. This evidence may be difficult to obtain. In fact, there is a good deal of evidence to the contrary.

In its 2002 Report to Congress on Internet gambling, the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that although law enforcement officials truly believed that money laundering might be conducted on gambling websites, no cases had ever been prosecuted in that area. [39] In addition, the Report noted, “representatives of the credit card and gambling industries believed that online gambling was not necessarily more susceptible to money laundering than any other type of on-line transaction.”

(4) Is the Regulation No More Extensive than Necessary to Serve the Interest?

Step four requires a “reasonable fit between the legislature’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends.” [40] In order to establish a reasonable fit, the government “is not required to employ the least restrictive means conceivable, but it must demonstrate narrow tailoring of the challenged regulation to the asserted interest…[The] challenged regulation should indicate that its proponent carefully calculated the costs and benefits associated with the burden on speech imposed by its prohibition.” [41]

The requirement for narrow tailoring could be problematic for the government, depending on the focus of prosecutions. If the government focuses on prosecuting online sportsbooks, it would probably fall within its authority under the Wire Act. If the federal government chooses to target all types of online gambling advertising, through all mediums, and in all states, a court would likely find the government failed to narrowly tailor. [42]

Furthermore, in order to satisfy the fourth requirement, the government would probably have to demonstrate that it carefully considered the possible alternative means of reducing the demand for online gambling. Failing to consider such alternatives has proven to be a fatal flaw in the past. In Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass'n v. U.S., the Court rejected the government’s application of the Communications Act against land-based casinos, stating “there surely are practical and nonspeech-related forms of regulation…that could more directly and effectively alleviate some of the social costs of casino gambling.” [43] That being said, it may be possible to distinguish online gambling from land-based gambling because most of the online gambling operators reside outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Arguably, this greatly limits the alternative means of regulation through audits, oversight and the like.

IV. Possible Solutions

The rapid spread of online gambling in the U.S. is certainly disconcerting. Unfortunately, like many aspects of “law and the Internet,” the law in this area is underdeveloped and prosecutions have resulted in very limited success. There are, however, several steps federal and state governments could take, outside of criminal prosecution, in an attempt to curtail Internet gambling.

Incentives for Cooperation From America’s Financial Institutions

One possibility is providing greater incentives for credit card companies to prevent the use of their credit cards for online gambling. Many American credit card companies and other financial institutions have taken independent steps to prohibit transactions between their customers and online gambling websites due to the volatile legal climate and their assessment of risks involved in the online gambling industry. [44] American Express and Discover, for example, cannot be used for online gambling. Others, like Visa and MasterCard, because of the way their businesses are structured, have not universally restricted the use of their credit cards for online gambling, but they have implemented procedures that allow member banks to block these transactions. Many of America’s banks, including Bank of America, Citibank, and Wells Fargo, now prohibit such use. [45] American financial institutions are not alone in this movement. Financial institutions across the globe are now enacting similar precautionary measures. Even the London based Honk Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation now bars these types of transactions.

Unfortunately, not all of these safeguards have proven effective. Some financial institutions rely on coding systems – requiring companies providing gambling services to include a numeric code during the credit card approval process to alert the credit card companies to the type of transaction taking place – but this type of system is easy to usurp. Companies can simply lie, enter a different code, and pretend to be some other type of establishment, a restaurant for example. Others can set up a multi-faceted business providing both legal and illegal services and simply report under the code corresponding to a legitimate enterprise.

In order to ensure the growth and improved effectiveness of this trend among American credit card companies, the government should provide greater incentives to catch instances of online gambling. One possibility might be permitting them to keep a percentage of illegal funds seized as a result of their efforts. Another might be in the form of tax breaks. Thus far, disincentives (i.e., the threat of prosecution) haven’t been entirely effective, but monetary incentives historically inspire great things.

Refuse to Enforce Gambling Debts

A second way the United States government may reduce online gambling is to refuse to enforce gambling debts in state and federal courts. If American gamblers could renege on their bets, via credit card cancellation or reporting to the credit card that they are using their cards in an illegal transaction, and offshore gambling companies were prevented from seeking recovery of those debts in the courts of the United States (also assuming the American gambler has no personal assets to seize in the country in which the offshore company is located), they would be dissuaded from targeting the American consumer or, possibly, prohibit his participation altogether.

Curtail the Advertising of Offshore Gambling Websites

Another way to curtail online gambling would be to further restrict U.S. based advertising of offshore gambling websites. This method, however, may run afoul of the First Amendment. The possible pitfalls of this approach are discussed above.

Legalize Online Gambling Altogether

A fourth possibility, and perhaps the most radical, would be to legalize online gambling. As mentioned above, the revenue generated every year via online gambling is in the billions. If such activity were legal, one could reasonably expect that number to rise dramatically. If legalized, that revenue could then be taxed and put to some other use.

As an example of such a scheme, consider the state of Georgia’s institution of a state run lottery. Though originally a controversial idea, Georgia’s lottery, to date, has funded hundreds of thousands of college scholarships, pre-K programs, and the training of the state’s educators. [46]

Given the controversial nature of gambling in general, legislation legalizing online gambling would not easily pass. The reasons for legalizing online gambling closely parallel the arguments once utilized against prohibition and often recited for the proposed legalization of illegal drugs—which obviously have not prevailed in the case of narcotics. Unlike the illegal drug market, however, gambling is already legal in some form in a majority of the states. There are obvious societal dangers associated with having readily available, legal online casinos, but unless the U.S. government discovers a way to effectively deter the operation, advertising and use of “illegal” online casinos, those same dangers will remain regardless of the legality of online gambling. Better to legalize it and put the revenue derived there from to good use.

Endnotes:

[1] ESPN: The Magazine, “The Biz” Section, Peter Keating, Feb. 2005.

[2] Gambling industry statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau

[3] Al Gore's infamous quote

[4] General Accounting Office, Report on Internet Gambling: An Overview of the Issues, December 2002.

[5] John Andrle, A Winning Hand: A Proposal for an International Regulatory Schema with Respect to the Growing Online Gambling Dilemna in the United States, 37 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1389 (2005).

[6] National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report (1999).

[7] Shannon Dorey, Gambling Online: Is It Legal?

[8] General Accounting Office, Report on Internet Gambling: An Overview of the Issues, December 2002.

[9] Shannon Dorey, Gambling Online: Is It Legal?

[10] John Andrle, A Winning Hand: A Proposal for an International Regulatory Schema with Respect to the Growing Online Gambling Dilemna in the United States, 37 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1389 (2005).

[11] E.g., The Travel Act.

[12] The Wire Act.

[13] United States v. Cohen, 260 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2001).

[14] The Wire Act.

[15] In re Mastercard Int’l Inc., 313 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2002).

[16] The Travel Act.

[17] Perrin v. U.S., 444 U.S. 37 (1979).

[18] See United States v. Heacock, 31 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 1994) (interstate mailings); United States v. Villano, 529 F.2d 1046, 1050-1051 (10th Cir. 1976) (interstate use of telephones for bookmaking); United States v. Campione, 942 F.2d 429, 435-436 (7th Cir. 1991) (use of interstate telephone facilities to secure credit card authorization); United States v. Miller, 379 F.2d 483, 485 (7th Cir. 1967) (use of a Western Union tickertape).

[19] The Illegal Gambling Business Act.

[20] The Tenth Amendment.

[21] Shannon Dorey, Gambling Online: Is It Legal?

[22] Nelson Rose, Gambling and the Law: Status of Gambling Laws, Aug. 2003.

[23] Nelson Rose, Gambling and the Law: Status of Gambling Laws, Aug. 2003.

[24] Bill Burton, New Jersey Assembly OKs Sports Betting Bill, Dec. 5, 2004.

[25] John Andrle, A Winning Hand: A Proposal for an International Regulatory Schema with Respect to the Growing Online Gambling Dilemna in the United States, 37 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1389 (2005).

[26] O.C.G.A. 16-12-20 (2005).

[27] Joel Groover, States Bet on Online Gambling Revenues, May 1, 2005.

[28] Matt Richtel, U.S. Steps Up Push Against Online Casinos by Seizing Cash, N.Y. Times, May 31, 2004, at C1.

[29] See Matt Ricthel, Electronic Arts to Stop Advertising for Online Casinos on Its Website, N.Y. Times, June 12, 2004, at C1.

[30] Jacob Sullum, Abetting Betting: Is Talking About Online Gambling Illegal?(April 9, 2004).

[31] Association of National Advertisers, Inc., Legal Issues: First Amendment Protection for Advertising.

[32] Lawrence G. Walters, Advertising Online Casinos: An Analysis of the Legal Rights and Risks, 7 Gaming L. Rev. 111, 111 (2003).

[33] Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

[34] United States v. Cohen, 260 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2001).

[35] U.S. v. Kaczowski, 114 F.Supp.2d 143, 151-155 (W.D.N.Y. 1999) (finding that an online gambling operation potentially violated the Wire Act, Travel Act, and several New York laws prohibiting the promotion of gambling); People ex rel. Vacco v. World Interactive Gambling Corp., 714 N.Y.S.2d 844, 861-863 (Sup. Ct. 1999) (prohibiting the continued operation of an Antiguan online gambling operation because it violated the Wire Act and other gambling and securities law).

[36] In re Mastercard Int’l Inc., 313 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2002).

[37] Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001).

[38] Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass’n v. U.S., 527 U.S. 173, 186-87 (1999).

[39] General Accounting Office, Report on Internet Gambling: An Overview of the Issues, December 2002.

[40] Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001).

[41] Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass’n v. U.S., 527 U.S. 173 (1999).

[42] Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) (holding that an advertising ban was “loosely tailored” because of its broad geographic scope and the breadth of advertisements it impacted).

[43] Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass’n v. U.S., 527 U.S. 173 (1999).

[44] General Accounting Office, Report on Internet Gambling: An Overview of the Issues, December 2002.

[45] Nelson Rose, Why Visa is Dropping Online Gambling, 7 Gaming L. Rev. 243 (2003).

[46] Georgia Lottery.com.