UIGEA - Background of the US law

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, otherwise known as the UIGEA, was an amendment which was signed into law as part of the SAFE Port Act (an unrelated national security-related piece of legislation) on October 13, 2006. It was done very hastily, added and steered through the process just minutes before the Senate adjourned for the 2006 election period, so much so that the final language was not even read by the most of the members who voted on it.

The UIGEA is designed to stop transactions that go from financial institutions to gaming-related sites (online casinos) on the internet and vice versa. Its intended effect is to cut off funding to online gaming operations and block ways that US players can sign up. The bill is supposed to affect banks, credit card companies, Western Union and other third-party entities where transfers of money can be initiated.

Exceptions for the lottery and horse racing exist, and there are allowances for "fantasy sports" games as well as free gambling-type games which includes most casino games to operate, with certain restrictions.

Quite a few online gaming operators have blocked their sites from participation from US players. Companies who are traded on public exchanges overseas (Europe, the UK, etc.) stopped dealing with American customers very quickly. There is no question that the aftershock has been felt throughout the industry.

The law requires compliance from banks, and the purpose is to identify gaming enterprises by using a certain merchant code. Banks and others involved in money transfers are ordered not to transfer money to businesses with that merchant code. They are also protected from litigation in the event they inadvertently blocked a customer transaction that was legal and legitimate, and that means they can act with more impunity, which can hurt customers.

Some logistical problems arise out of all this. One of those problems is that online gaming businesses who wanted to continue accepting US customers such as Rushmore Casino figured out ways to use different merchant codes so that banks could not recognize whether or not transactions were gaming related. On the other end, banks really dreaded being in a position where they have to monitor more customer transactions than they really have to in order to comply, and they don't want to devote (the cost of) manpower and money required to track down the recipients of paper checks.

The conundrum is that while the UIGEA has doubtless taken a toll on the online gaming industry, specifically as it concerns U.S. merchants, affiliates and customers playing casino games, there are certain ways an affected party could get around the law, and this bill can't possibly cover all of them. How far the United States government can go is a legitimate question, and enforcement of the UIGEA is difficult if they can't cross jurisdictional lines. After all, how could you make foreign governments to cooperate if they don't have to or don't want to? How could businesses that fall completely outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., possibly be held criminally liable for activities that, within their own jurisdictions, are legal?

Some of these difficulties led to the bill not taking full effect as of yet. Ultimately it was to go into effect in December of 2009, but the industry bought some time, due to a great extent to the efforts of Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who has fought the bill and has introduced alternative legislation that would supersede the UIGEA while establishing regulatory guidelines for online casinos and poker rooms.

As of the moment, the full provisions of the bill would be in effect starting June 1, and so it has both sides nervous. It still remains to be seen whether the UIGEA will be able to further disrupt an industry many feel should simply be taxed.