… and breaks the illusions cherished by Kentucky’s lawyers
Last week, Party Gaming used a strong counter argument against the state of Kentucky’s lawyers, who may have thought that the company and other major online gambling sites will simply give in to flimsy claims whose goal is to recoup funds lost by state residents.
Earlier this year, the state, which already made an attempt to seize international domain names of internet gambling companies, had also targeted online gambling giants like Full Tilt Poker owners Pocket Kings in an attempt to recover the funds lost by its residents. Later on, the list of targets was enlarged by Party Gaming and Microgaming, which further on led to the Party Gaming riposte.
The Party Gaming’s argument, according to Poker News Daily, which had an insight into the documents, was that: “Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements for service of process set out in the Hague Convention… Nothing in the Hague Convention permits a Plaintiff to effect service of process by sending a copy of the summons and initial complaint via registered mail.”
According to the company’s counsel, the Kentucky action should be cancelled since the state failed to clearly outline a claim upon which relief can be granted. In addition, Party Gaming also claimed that Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Secretary J. Michael Brown is not entitled to bring about the lawsuit.
“The responsibility to initiate such a lawsuit is vested with the Attorney General, who has not, to date, made an appearance or participated in the filing of this action on the Commonwealth’s behalf,” it was stated.
“Plaintiff (the state of Kentucky) has failed to identify a single purported ‘loser,’ a single quantifiable loss, and a single date on which an alleged loss has occurred,” the company explained, adding that “Plaintiff has alleged no facts and, indeed, can allege no facts sufficient to assert that Party Gaming is a ‘winner’ under the statute from which relief can be sought.”
It was added that, in order to be a winner, an entity must also risk being a loser. And as the company counsel claimed, in the state lawyer’s own words: “Party Gaming collected only a ‘rake’ or ‘commission’ from participants in poker games… a participation fee that could not be ‘won’ or ‘lost’ and was not affected by the ultimate ‘winner’ or ‘loser’ of the hand.”
In the end, Party assessed that the state law was not even designed to apply to online gaming.
“The complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff is attempting to invoke a statute that 100 years of authority in the Kentucky courts illustrates was designed to serve a very different purpose – to protect gamblers and their families from becoming wards of the state and to prevent illegal gambling by rendering void and unenforceable the gambling contract itself and certain related agreements,” they underlined.