Hacker News
points by petcat 5 days ago | 0 comments
I'm not going to argue the merits of their business model. But the fact that numerous lawsuits have had mixed rulings indicates that there is at least some legal gray area here.

But if you know better then maybe you should just decree from the courtroom in your house and send your ruling to the AGs of all 50 states.

[–] freejazz 5 days ago
I don't think there are "numerous lawsuits" which have had "mixed rulings" it's really only a subset of the cases that have had anything remotely construable as positive to these companies. And again, that doesn't excuse their behavior. Bold of you to point to one court saying "I'm not sure" when the vast majorities of the others have said "this is perfectly clear, and here's why the other court is wrong"

Like, do you have any actual argument as to why it's not gambling, or are you just going to hang it on this plausible deniability? It's not like they knew the 3rd circuit would decide in their favor anyway, so I don't really think your point is the slam dunk you're acting like it is. They knowingly engaged in activities that most states consider to be gambling. They aren't even really denying that. They are just saying it falls under federal regulation, but the argument for that is so shockingly poor, it's hard to imagine how the 3rd circuit's decision could stand, but its only on a preliminary injunction anyway, so it's still not quite a merits decision. The third circuit said that by its own logic, Congress must weigh in on whether or not "bingo" is a swap regulated by the CFTC. If you can't understand how facially stupid that is, I don't know what to say.

[–] petcat 5 days ago
Apparently having a legal discussion that requires nuance is impossible in this forum.

Yes I think what they are doing is illegal and they should not be permitted to operate outside the gaming regulations of individual states.

But it doesn't matter what I think. I was trying to have a conversation about the gray areas and why we don't just send people straight to jail for trying out a new, novel, (and potentially illegal), business model.

The courts are figuring it out.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago
The point of my original post, which I think the one youre responding to aligns with, is that we shouldn't have to "wait for the courts to figure it out." Illegal things should be illegal as a matter of the written law, not dicta from jurists. To do that we need legislators that will write narrow laws not influenced by the industry they are regulating, not tied to a poison pill budget proposal, etc...
[–] Dylan16807 5 days ago
Nobody is stopping nuance. But small enough gray areas don't excuse going hog-wild and courts seem to think this gray area is not very big.
[–] freejazz 4 days ago
Weird how your response to me asking you if there was an argument with actual merit is to decry my inability to engage in nuance in a legal discussion (ps I'm an attorney)... Also, it's worth pointing out that it seems like you completely made up the vast majority of your previous post. I guess that's just "nuance?"

>I was trying to have a conversation about the gray areas and why we don't just send people straight to jail for trying out a new, novel, (and potentially illegal), business model.

Actually we do. If a court finds your activity was illegal, you get the according punishment. The court doesn't say "oh gee golly, you're guilty but we'll let you off for this one because who could see it coming!"

>The courts are figuring it out.

The courts figured it out. It does not matter in Utah state court, what the 3rd circuit thinks. It is not binding precedent in Utah state courts.