Online Casino News and Information

European trade chief Peter Mandelson, has been asked by Online Gaming Firms to change tack over a controversial move by the United States to close it’s multi billion dollar gambling market to foreign firms.

EU companies, many of them world leaders and including PartyGaming, Bwin, Sporting Bet and 888.com, saw their stock market value plunge in 2006 after the United States shut off their biggest market.

In May this year, after being defeated at the World Trade Organisation, Washington took the rare step of withdrawing its WTO commitment to allow foreign firms into its gambling market.

Since then the EU and smaller countries have been haggling with the U.S. administration over compensation it must offer in the form of concessions in other areas of trade.

This week the talks were extended until December 14.

Naotaka Matuskata, senior policy advisor with U.S. law firm Alston & Bird, said Washington was not making meaningful compensation offers and it was time for the EU to turn to the U.S. Congress in an attempt to reverse the online gaming ban.

Matsukata’s firm represents UC Group, a British company which processes online payments including for the gaming sector.

Matsukata, a former USTR official told Reutors during a visit to Brussels, “The EU should explore the legislative options available at this moment, largely because United States Trade Representative’s Office is so dug in.”

Mandelson is due to visit Washington between November 7 and 9. A spokesman said he planned to speak, either by phone or in person, to Barney Frank, chair of the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee.

Frank has put forward legislation to roll back the U.S. online gambling ban although he has struggled to find support.

“The European Commission continues to strive for the best possible compensation deal for European service providers,” Mandelson’s spokesman said, declining to comment further.

Matsukata said Mandelson could focus minds in Congress on the potential pain of compensation demanded by the EU and other countries such as Canada and Japan in other areas of U.S. business if the ban is not reversed.

If Frank’s bill advances, USTR may have to reconsider its position, he said.

EU gambling firms have previously urged Brussels to push for $100 billion (48.85 billion pounds) in compensation, a figure U.S. officials have dismissed as exaggerated.

In 2000, Mandelson’s predecessor Pascal Lamy warned Congress of retaliatory measures after failing to make headway with the U.S. administration over export tax subsidies ruled illegal by the WTO. The U.S. administration eventually scrapped those measures known as the Foreign Sales Corporation programme.

Which means the UIGEA could also be easily scrapped.

31 days since iMEGA went before Judge Mary L. Cooper in US District Court (3rd District/Trenton, NJ division) to make oral arguments in support of our request for a temporary restraining order versus the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, and to contest the motion to dismiss by the US Dept. of Justice, et al. It was our hope that we would see a decision from Judge Cooper before day’s end.

We do recognize, though, that it is up to the discretion of a Federal judge as to how long they wish to take to render a decision. So, though the court said “30 days”, Judge Cooper can and should take as long as she feels is necessary to provide a fully-considered decision.

Frankly, we feel that it is a good sign that Judge Cooper is taking her time. We believe it confirms iMEGA’s suit is not a “nuisance suit” - one lacking in merit - which would likely have been dismissed immediately.

Also, with the introduction of the draft of UIGEA’s regulations by the Dept. of the Treasury and Federal Reserve since our day in court, there is no indication from the court of how this may weigh on Judge Cooper’s process. Our legal team has been in contact with the US Dept. of Justice attorneys, and both sides have stipulated that the draft regulations be entered into the record.

Obviously, we hope that Judge Cooper will grant our motion today, and set us up for a full evidentiary hearing, so that we may demonstrate that UIGEA is a bad law on two counts:

1- It is an egregious violation of Americans’ “digital civil rights”, in that we should enjoy the same freedoms online that we enjoy in the real world.

2- UIGEA is functionally a bad law. In an effort to protect minors, gambling addicts, and American players from fraud, UIGEA instead - by removing the banks and credit card companies, along with the safeguards they employ every day - has in fact made those groups more vulnerable.

What is most important to iMEGA is that this law is overturned, so that Americans’ digital civil rights are preserved, and that this bad law does not become a precedent for targeted attacks on other popular Internet entertainment categories.

Americans should and must preserve their right to choose what activities they wish to enjoy online, in the privacy of their homes, in their own free time.  Laws have already been proposed that would target other Internet mainstays like social networking, online dating, video games and much more.

Watch here for the decision from the Honorable Judge Cooper. As our resources in Washington say, “The outcome I am sure is going to be an answer that the iMEGA and the rest of the Internet will want to hear. Inside surely is looking good at this point.”

It was a big week for online poker in Washington D.C. this week as nearly 100 Poker Players Alliance members converged on Capitol Hill for a conference and to talk with legislators about online gaming.

John Pappas, PPA executive director said, “By all accounts the Washington Fly-In and policy conference was a huge success, and we made a significant impression on Congress and the media.

The poker supporters spent three days lobbying and participating in talks about online gambling. During those days, they met with nearly 50 members of the U.S. House and Senate to defend their right to play poker online.

Pappas said, “ We were armed with the message that poker is a game of skill which should be regulated, not prohibited, and we successfully delivered that message. Several of our meetings resulted in commitments of support and co-sponsorship of H.R. 2046 and H.R. 2610.”

Some of the talking points they used to express their opinions included:

-Technology has progressed to effectively combat problem gambling and ensure that players are of legal age.
-Billions in potential tax revenue from online poker are being lost under the UIGEA.
-Appropriate federal regulation can ensure that minors are kept out of sites, services are provided to problem gamblers and the proper taxes are collected.
-Prohibitions don’t work. The UIGEA effectively bans online poker in the U.S. and drives those players underground. Meanwhile, poker continues to grow in popularity nationwide. Seventy-five percent of Americans oppose banning online poker.
-If Congress allows me to bet on horses and state lotteries online, why can’t I play a skill game like poker with other consenting adults?

The PPA members on hand to talk about the issues included top names in the poker world such as Barry Greenstein and Howard Lederer. The PPA Fly-In garnered quite a bit of media attention, including an interview with Greenstein in the Baltimore Sun about his involvement.

Greenstein said, “The internet gives people an easier way to play, they don’t have to get six or seven buddies to come over to their house. They can play with people, not only frm around the country, but around the world. You sit down at the poker table on the internet, you are playing with someone who lives in Lebanon or somewhere else, It’s really an international game.”

Lederer was a big part of the PPA’s policy forum, “Poker: Public Policy, Politics, Skill and the Future of the American Tradition,” on Wednesday. He and Charles Nesson, Radley Balko and Kenneth Adams led the discussion as participants took a look at the political future of poker.

“The consensus? Poker players must become politically aware, register to vote and make their voices heard in debates and elections,” Pappas said.

He also said one of the highlights of the conference was the Tuesday night reception on Capitol Hill where more than 150 staffers and PPA members gathered together to talk poker.

“It was awesome,” Pappas said. “Even better, eight members of Congress attended the reception, including Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, to show their support for the PPA. I have worked in Washington for a long time, and I can tell you how difficult it is to get members of Congress to show up to these types of events. It is a testament to the many hours the PPA has spend building our credibility with lawmakers.”
Overall, Pappas considers the three days in Washington D.C. time well spent as the organization helped up the ante in the poker players’ fight for regulation of online poker and federal support for it as a game of skill.

Pappas said, “On behalf of our chairman, Senator Alfonse D’Amato, I want to thank the dedicated PPA members and PPA state representatives who joined us in Washington, Without you this could not have been accomplished. Senator D’Amato has always said that our membership is our strongest voice in Washington, and this week you really proved it.”

Watch here for more news on Washington and the success of the lobby.

Supporters tell members of Congress that the card game is one of skill and shouldn’t be restricted by U.S. Internet laws as are games of chance.

WASHINGTON — When trying to convince lawmakers that her career is more than just a card game, professional poker player Annie Duke refuses to fold.

Duke said, “What I do is not gambling.”

The world-champion player joined other poker hotshots lobbying Wednesday on Capitol Hill, hoping to persuade members of Congress that poker, like chess and mah-jongg, is a game of skill — and not, like roulette, a casino game that leaves players’ fortunes to chance.

Representatives of the Poker Players Alliance, an association of professional gamers and industry leaders with more than 800,000 members nationwide, contend that current federal online-gambling regulations violate international trade rules and unfairly restrict the civil liberties of poker enthusiasts.

Rep. Robert Wexler, who opposes the current restrictions, said, “It’s a national  pastime, and the idea that we would prohibit adults from playing poker on the venue of the 21st century is illogical.”

Wexler has introduced a bill that would reverse restrictions on online poker bets by grouping poker with other skill games, such as backgammon and bridge. It would also allow state and federal governments to tax gaming transactions and implement safeguards to prevent play by minors and by individuals in states that ban Internet gambling. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is sponsoring a similar measure that would provide broader regulation over all Internet wagering in place of an outright ban.

Last year, members of the Poker Players Alliance were trumped by enactment of legislation banning banks and credit card companies from processing payments to online gaming establishments based outside the United States.

Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), a primary sponsor of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, said the Internet’s unregulated environment magnified problems associated with gambling, such as addiction, money laundering and organized crime.

“It’s like having a casino not in every neighborhood, but in every living room,” Goodlatte said.

Poker proponents have suggested that, for too long, social conservatives have demonized poker as a vice of compulsive gambling addicts who recklessly hedge their bets beyond advisable limits.
That’s not so, said Duke, who in 2004 won $2 million after knocking out eight poker legends in the invitation-only World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions. She called poker an “incredible intellectual exercise” that, with each hand played, demanded considerable knowledge of mathematics, psychology and money management.

Duke said, “Poker is a game that is deeply complex, but t he complexities don’t reveal themselves until you know a lot about the game.”
Duke also said,” It was hypocritical to permit online bets on lotteries and horse racing and not provide the same allowances for a more skill-based game such as poker.”

Duke stated, “Poker is like options trading, where brokers make rapid decisions under conditions of extreme uncertainty, the critical thinking going into each poker hand was smiliar to the decisions people made every day, from shopping habits to personal relationships.

Goodlatte, however, argues that it would be a mistake to categorize poker with other skill games.

“There’s just no comparison,” he said. “Card games . . . are games of chance with some skill involved in bluffing. But each hand you are dealt is total luck.”

Federal law distinguishes games that require a certain level of intellectual engagement to succeed from those in which players rely largely on luck to reap rewards; it regulates the latter more rigorously. By being classified as a game of skill rather than a game of chance, poker would face fewer legal restrictions.

The World Trade Organization has ruled that U.S. online-gambling restrictions violate international trade agreements.

The United States responded by withdrawing from a WTO provision regulating gaming issues.

Naotaka Matsukata, a former policy planning director for the U.S. trade representative’s office, said that unprecedented action by the United States could undermine both U.S. negotiating credibility and the WTO as an institution.

“It really takes the spirit of what the WTO is about and turns it on its head,” Matsukata said. Several countries, including the European Union, are seeking up to $100 billion in compensation from the United States for its online-gambling restrictions.

Frank’s and Wexler’s bills are awaiting consideration in committee. Steven Adamske, a spokesman for Frank, said that Frank’s bill would move forward when it garnered sufficient support. Josh Rogin, a spokesman for Wexler, said he hoped hearings would be held early next year.
Vice president of government affairs for the PPA said, “ He would like to see a victory at the end of the current congressional session.”  “We think we have a pretty strong hand, and we are going to continue to play it until the end.”

Watch here as we keep you up to date on the latest News from Washington.

Antigua takes their case to the WTO

On Thursday, Antigua and Barbuda will outline their case before the WTO (World Trade Organization) arbitrators in the on going Internet gaming dispute with the U.S.

The government of Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer is seeking US$3.4 billion in trade sanctions against the United States after it banned cross-border Internet gambling.

On Thursday, a three-member panel of arbitrators will hear oral arguments in Geneva from both sides before making a ruling. Officials say a decision is expected on November 30.

Earlier this month, the Antigua government filed a motion with the WTO requesting the suspension of concessions and other obligations.

The 53 page document outlined the country’s rationale that in the absence of Washington agreeing to follow its original WTO commitments, lifting copyright law is the only way the country could be fairly compensated for losses.

Though the Spencer administration has signaled a willingness to negotiate an amicable settlement, Washington is yet to give any indication that it is prepared to come to the bargaining table.

Antigua’s lead attorney, Mark Mendel said “So far, we have been the only ones willing to negotiate, and it takes two to get a deal done. That is what we have always been wanting to happen. Hopefully they will come around and see that it is the best and right thing to do.”

Finance and Economy Minister Dr Errol Cort said, “He is closely monitoring the developments in Geneva.”

Cort is due to travel to Washington next week for International Monetary Fund/World Bank meetings, said, “He is awaiting the outcome of Thursday’s hearing before scheduling a meeting with the officials from the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office (USTR).”

Cort also said, “So at least I would be in a better position when I meet with the USTR’s office in Washington to know exactly what position we will take. “

He also added, “So I am still hopeful that we will meet when I go to Washington, but I am awaiting initially the first impressions from our representatives in Geneva at the end of the first day of the hearing on Thursday.”

Last year, Washington barred American banks and credit card companies from processing online gambling payments. The move stunted the growth of the lucrative gaming sector in St John’s.

While WTO last has upheld a US decision to prevent cross border gambling, it ruled that it was illegal for the US to target offshore gambling outlets and not apply the same rules to American operators.

Washington subsequently announced its intention to explicitly remove Internet gambling from its WTO treaty obligations. As a result Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, India, Japan, Macau and the member states of the European Union have filed separate compensation claims.

Watch here for the latest news on the Online Gaming Issues.

DoylesRoom.com opens doors to U.S. Players

DoylesRoom will open its doors to U.S. players, with the exception of 11 states, they will except players from 39 states in the U.S. America can test their skills against the poker legend Doyle Brunson at his own site.

Because of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), DoylesRoom.com stopped accepting U.S. poker players in February of this year.
Shortly thereafter, DoylesRoom.com left Tribeca Tables and instead became a part of the Microgaming network. The site’s U.S. players were offered the opportunity to transfer their funds to Full Tilt Poker.

Players who chose to join Full Tilt and now wish to return to DoylesRoom.com will have full access to their old accounts.

U.S. citizens who want to open new DoylesRoom.com accounts can deposit money via ePassport and Western Union. Visa and MasterCard payments will soon be accepted as well.

DoylesRoom.com will continue be a part of the Microgaming network.

Who will follow DoylesRoom? Watch here to find out.

Members on the panel of a trade forum in Brussels, put out harsh criticism at towards the U.S., focusing on a burgeoning trade clash between the U.S. and Europe over internet gaming.
The forum believes that the US could be liable for more than $100 billion U.S. funds, in trade concessions to European industries after placing illegal discriminatory trade restrictions on European gaming operators.

The disputed concessions arise from Antigua’s victory earlier this year when the WTO ruled that the US violated its treaty obligations by excluding online Antiguan gaming operators, while allowing domestic operators to offer various forms of online gaming.

Instead of complying with the ruling, the Bush administration withdrew the sizeable gambling industry from its free trade commitments.

As a result, all 151 WTO members are considering seeking compensation for the withdrawal equal to the size of the entire US land-based and online gaming market, estimated at nearly US$100 billion.

The European Union, along with India and five other countries, has filed notice that it intends to seek compensation.
Nao Matsukata, former director of policy planning for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said “The U.S. decision is a major threat to a rules based international trading system.”

Matsukata also said “If more countries follow the U.S. lead and do the same thing, the entire WTO system could implode and that would be extremely dangerous for U.S. economic interests and for free trade generally.” “Part of what makes the U.S. such a formidable opponent in international negotiations is its credibility. That credibility is now at stake for the U.S. government not just in the trade area but in foreign relations generally.”

A trade lawyer at Herbert Smith in Brussels, Lode Van Den Hende, criticized the U.S. for presecuting foreign online gaming companies while letting domestic online gaming interest operate with impunity.
Hende said “This is absolute discrimination against foreign operators that the WTO has found to be illegal.” “It is exactly the kind of practice that the WTO was set up to eliminate, and now t he U.S. is violating this very basic principle that it fought hard to put in place at the inception of the organization.”

Watch this section as we keep you updated on all the news from the UIGEA, iMEGA, and any aspects of Online Gambling.

PartyGaming Puts Up “For Sale” Notice??

Chief Executive Officer, Mitch Gerber has reportedly announced, that the online gambling group PartyGaming is open for approaches from Las Vegas based casinos regarding a sale.

The online news website FT.com reported that Garber, speaking in a one-to-one interview during the EIG 2007 i-Gaming conference in Barcelona, has announced the Gibraltar-based online gaming group is keen to entertain buyout offers from the major casinos in Las Vegas. PartyGaming is the parent company of Party Casino and Party Poker and also offers online Backgammon, Bingo and Sportsbetting.

At its peak, PartyGaming was the world’s largest online gambling company, valued at almost $10 billion at one stage. They were hurt badly by the UIGEA, after their Board of Directors decided it would be prudent to withdraw from the US market (which provided the majority of their customer base) late last year. The company now has a market cap of around $2.5 billion and Garber believes his company could be a viable purchase option for a major Las Vegas land-based casino looking to enter the global online betting market.

When asked if PartyGaming was already in talks with a potential buyer, Garber refused to comment. Competitor 888, themselves the target of a failed merger with Ladbrokes earlier this year, has been touted as a possible buyer. FT.com reported 888 also refused to comment on a possible merger.

PartyGaming is currently in protracted talks with the US DoJ over its activities in the US prior to their withdrawal, and industry analysts believe that any merger cannot progress until the outcome of those talks becomes clear. PartyGaming and 888 could both still be facing heavy fines from the US DoJ, if their treatment of NETeller this year is any indication. NETeller was forced to pay a $136 million fine which it paid in order to avoid being de-listed by the AIM trading index.

Nevertheless, despite its fall from previous lofty heights, PartyGaming continues to trade profitably and has been slowly recovering in an increasingly competitive market. A large casino group like Mirage or Bellagio might be interested in picking up PartyGaming on the cheap, perhaps on the gamble that Rep. Barney Frank’s IGREA bill will be ratified by Congress, effectively negating the UIGEA.

Shareholders in PartyGaming are an optimistic bunch, but many have questioned why the company’s CEO continues to exercise his options and sell off his shares. To a layman observer like this reporter, it might seem the CEO has no faith in his own company and is offloading his holdings. And now he wants to sell the whole company?

With the SP rising and falling like a blackjack player’s stack of green and red chips, PartyGaming is truly a stock for gamblers. But maybe, just maybe, “the count is good” – some large purchases have been made today around the 32p mark and perhaps the SP is on its way up.

Spoken from a representative, “The outcome of the iMEGA versus UIGEA will determine more of what will happen in the future.” “We feel it will be good news, at the present it is too hard to predict.”

Barney Frank Questions Online Game Study

Barney Frank has 37 co-sponsors and is still gaining ground.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) has publicly questioned what value there is to be gained from studies into online gambling, yet will continue to co-sponsor Rep. Shelley Berkley’s (D-Nev) bill calling for a one-year study of online gambling in the US.

Rep. Frank is slowly building support for his own bill, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 (IGREA), which seeks to regulate online gambling in the US. As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Frank has been outspoken in his criticism of the highly-controversial Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which was passed last year on the back of the must-pass Safe Ports Act.

Frank has only 37 co-sponsors for his bill, and has admitted support for regulation of online gambling has stalled. Yet he could receive a strong surge of support when the European Union makes their claim for damages against the U.S., after Antiqua won their appeal against the U.S. at the WTO (World Trade Organization).

Antigua claimed the US was in breach of their GATS commitments when they attempted to block foreign online casino operators from accessing the US market through the UIGEA. The US claimed they made a mistake when they signed up to their agreements a few years ago. The WTO ruled in favor of Antigua, the US appealed the decision and lost. As a result, WTO members are lining up to claim compensation from the US with some analysts estimating the EU claims could be as high as $100 billion. If the EU presses for full compensation, Frank could well get a surge of co-sponsors which could result in the IGREA being rushed through Congress.

Barney Franks said “I know the pressure is going to increase. I don’t know where it ends, but they are going to be asking big bucks from us”.

Frank is a co-sponsor of Rep. Berkley’s bill, which will commission the National Academy of Sciences to carry out an independent study of online gambling in the U.S., of which Frank is a co-sponsor of this bill as well. Frank said “What’s to study? Whether or not I should be able to make my own bet with my own money?”

Berkley has 64 co-sponsors for her bill. Which calls for the one year study of online gambling.

Recently we spoke with the President of iMEGA Ed Leyden and he has graciously taken the time from his insane week of battleing the US government to share his insights with us - Poker Affiliates. Please read his very insightful take on the current situation and continue to support their efforts. These guys are doing way more than the PPA, trust me.

Question: This is a two part question, what deficiencies does the US government acknowledge about the UIGEA at this current time? And also how seriously will the argument that the UIGEA ‘chills’ business due to placing unnecessary fear take this case?

ED LEYDEN/iMEGA:  As would be the case with almost any litigant involved in the early stages of a law suit concerning issues that is considers vital to its interests, the government is not now conceding that the statute in question (the UIGEA) is deficient in any way. The government does acknowledge in its filings, however, that iMEGA members (that is, market participants in the Internet industry, including gaming operators and affiliates) could “theoretically” be subject to prosecution. It is this genuine threat of prosecution that exerts the chilling effect on industry participants and, in turn, on the individual players who engage in otherwise constitutionally protected conduct with these companies and firms.  Furthermore, it would be no answer for the government to say, in essence, “we’re only going after the operators (or their U.S.-based affiliates) and not the players, so no one with any cognizable First Amendment rights is being harmed here.”   In other words, the government may recognize your right to say or do what you want, but it nevertheless reserves the power to punish the person to whom you say it—and to inconvenience and interfere with the totally-neutral third party (i.e., banks and credit card companies) intermediaries who help to convey the message for you.  In essence, in the government’s view, it now only takes “one to tango.”

A lot of gambling affiliates are worried they are in the danger of being arrested since they receive funds (commission) for referring players to online casinos. UIGEA Section 5363 details how the burden is placed mostly on the banking institutes accepting and/or facilitating funds to these casinos.

Question: Are affiliates at risk when they receive a commission check or wire transfer from an online gambling company?

ED LEYDEN/iMEGA: 31 USC §5362 (that is, UIGEA) expands the definition of punishable “betting” or “wagering” to include the act of providing instructions to someone else on how to convey the funds necessary to facilitate a betting or wagering transaction.  This represents a wholly new and distinct theory of criminal prosecution that is in addition to the “aiding and abetting” counts that the acceptance of payments from an operator could, under certain circumstances, already expose an affiliate. In short, an aggressive federal prosecutor could well choose to construe the technical instructions underlying a hyperlink to constitute the type of “instructions” addressed in §5362 and, thus, indict an affiliate with counts under that statutory provision, as well as on “aiding and abetting” counts with respect to the offshore operator. Fortunately, no such prosecutions have been initiated to date—under either theory–and we hope that one never is.

Question: We all know how nice it was for the legislators to carve out Horse Racing amendments in the new law. How influential were the land based horse racing companies and tracks when the new laws were put in place?

ED LEYDEN/iMEGA: The racing industry and pari-mutuel operators have long enjoyed special consideration in policy-making due, in large measure, to the genuine affection and sentimentality that  the public feels for thoroughbreds, in general (Seabiscuit, Secretariat, and Barbaro being perfect examples of this phenomenon), combined with the reality that those states where the racing industry is strongest have also seemed to elect very effective senators and congressmen who’ve risen to leadership positions (Kentucky being a prime example). The fact that many state governments also derive substantial streams of revenue from pari-mutuel racing—and have built “brick and mortar” slots parlors around such tracks—hasn’t hurt the industry in congress, either.

Question: Lastly, we have gotten the impression that only operators who are promoting 1) Online Sportsbooks or 2) Casinos and Poker rooms that accept US citizens as players are at risk. Is this statement true and how do you see affiliates moving on now that the new laws are in place?

ED LEYDEN/iMEGA: I think the answer, above, probably applies to this question, too, but we  would nevertheless agree that the operations mentioned are generally at far higher exposure to prosecution—all other things being equal—than are most affiliates. In fact, the act of referring a non-U.S. player to a non-U.S. site would seem to give rise to no American law enforcement issues at all. That is not to say, however, that affiliates are without any risk—for the reasons stated earlier. The most important thing that an affiliate or portal can and should do—without regard to the UIGEA—is to exercise thorough due diligence about the companies with which it does business. Furthermore, even without the threat of prosecution, affiliates and portals must remain aware of the very real reputational harm that can come from involvement with a “bad” site, i.e., one that doesn’t treat its visitors fairly and properly.

Click here to read the actually interview.