As Efforts Stall, What Next For California iPoker Legislation?

Home » Poker News » As Efforts Stall, What Next For California iPoker Legislation?

Friday, September 30th, 2016 | Written by Stephen Smith

On August 31st, the Californian legislature adjourned for 2016 without having made any major progress on passing an internet poker bill. In fact, before the regulatory bill could even be formally voted upon, problems delayed then halted the process, and as Cantor Fitzgerald analyst Ralph Garcea explains:

“This marks yet another legislative session where an online poker bill has not been voted on – no online poker bill has ever been voted on by the full Assembly. While California still tries to make up its decade-old mind, Nevada, New Jersey and Delaware all have legalized and regulated online gambling – with New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan moving along the process.”

As a result, online gambling advocates have now been left wondering what needs to happen in order to ensure that 2017 finally becomes the year when online poker legislation passes in The Golden State.

Lack of Commitment

Even though iPoker did not make it much further than the starting gate in California in 2016, there still seems to be a general interest in legalizing the game. The problem is that something usually ends up getting in the way of progress as it has this year.

While lawmakers will say that they support moving forward with online poker legislation as a way to increase the number of freedoms available to Californians and bring in more tax revenue for the state, the politicians seem to be unwilling to do the heavy lifting to actually make it a reality. If 2017 plays out with the same lackluster commitment to the cause, then it probably is unlikely a bill will happen; however, if lawmakers truly commit themselves and are willing to do the work required, then there is a chance.

A change in the level of commitment isn’t all that is needed for a California iPoker bill to make progress and succeed in 2017. One major point of contention needs to be rectified in some way for things to move forward. The problem centers on the involvement of PokerStars with the process.

The PokerStars Factor

By teaming up with a Californian tribal coalition in the hope of providing online poker after a bill is signed into law, Amaya is causing major controversy. On the other side of the argument, after all, is a second coalition of tribes protesting their involvement, with their argument hinging on the fact that PokerStars continued to provide illegal online poker in the United States after the game was prohibited by the UIGEA of 2006.

Under the bad actor terms of the law, the anti-PokerStars coalition feels the operator should be punished for flaunting the law, and believe that allowing PokerStars to apply for an iGaming license as if nothing had happened would send the wrong message to other international operators willing to contravene US laws.

Unwilling to Compromise

In their defense, Amaya says that they did not own PokerStars when the offense occurred and that those who were responsible for the company back then are no longer involved with it now. Signalling some willingness to compromise, PokerStars said that it was prepared to agree to terms that would require it to sit out for a certain period of time if it was assured a right to apply for a license later, or alternatively to pay an extra fee for a license upfront. PokerStars’ opponents, however, have rejected both of these options, and the pro-PokerStars coalition has basically said that if Amaya is barred completely, they will not support the legislation. Elaborating further, analyst Garcea stated:

“PokerStars was cause of much debate regarding bill AB 2863, initially being suggested to be in the ‘penalty box’ for five years, after which time they would be allowed to enter the market upon payment of a US$60M fee.. What’s complicating matters in such a tribal dominated state is that some tribes are on PokerStars’ side and others against it.”

Likelihood of Success in 2017

So what has to happen? Lawmakers may need to move forward without the full support of the tribal unions or force them to come to some type of agreement. The former may end up being what’s necessary, as there is a good chance that the groups involved will find another reason to stall if they are allowed to dictate how the legislative process progresses. In this regard, the ‘Consumer Protection‘ argument that gained prominence amongst pro-campaigners in 2016 may help contribute to a successful California online poker outcome in 2017.