Kentucky Supreme Court Favors State In Online Gambling Case

KY court rules against Internet gambling

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:

[ Business]

The Kentucky Supreme court issued a ruling Thursday that it will not lift the freeze by registrars of 141 Internet gambling domain names unless an owner of the names comes forward.

The ruling by the Court is not final, but the decision is being viewed as a temporary setback by the affected parties.

Joe Brennan Jr., IMEGA’s chairman
Joe Brennan Jr.
IMEGA’s chairman

"In the written decision, the Court clearly indicates they agree with our arguments, and are inviting us to refile, so that the technicality of the standing issue can be resolved," said Joe Brennan, Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) chairman.

"It’s unfortunate, but I can’t imagine that Kentucky’s lawyers will celebrate a ruling that says ‘bring us an owner, so we can rule in your favor’".

iMEGA and the other affected parties, Interactive Gaming Concil and Sportsbook.com, have up to 20 days to file a motion for reconsideration. In the ruling, the Kentucky Supreme Court indicated that no additional briefs or oral arguments were necessary for them to consider the case, and that a petition could be made to the Appeals Court to move the case immediately back to the state Supreme Court.

"All along, it seemed the Court wanted to go our way, and this decision today indicates that is still the case," Brennan said.

"The Court is telling us that all that is necessary is for one domain owner to come forward, and we likely win."

Brennan indicated iMEGA would immediately work with other parties to resolve the Court’s issue, and would quickly file a motion to satisfy the Court.

"We obviously would have preferred a complete, clean victory today, but reading the decision, it seems this is a technicality that is only delaying the inevitable," Brennan sai


Kentucky Supreme Court Favors State In Online Gambling Case
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • Guest

    The Kentucky Supreme court issued a ruling Thursday that it will not lift the freeze by registrars of 141 Internet gambling domain names unless an owner of the names comes forward.

    your blog starts off with the above sentence – after reading that sentence i have to ask myself how does the headline of your blog and that sentence go hand in hand? Your headline is “Kentucky Supreme Court Favors State In Online Gambling Case” and yet your opening statment says the court ruled it wont lift the freeze unless one of the owners comes forward – seems to me proper interpretation of the ruling is that it is in favor of the industry and that once an owner steps forward and affirms that imega and the igc represent them the freeze will be lifted. Try to have a headline more reflective of the facts would you.

  • Guest

    I have to agree with wtf on this ., what’s worse is your byline statest “KY court rules against Internet gambling” when in fact that is obviously not the case. The courts are simply ruling they won’t lift a ban until a defendant in the case comes forward with a physical name. This isnt considered a new ruling, but a refusal of the courts to move on the ban of the internet domain names until action of the defendants takes place. You really need to do a better job reporting the news, especially in such hotly contested debate as internet gambling.

  • http://blog.texxsmith.com Texxs

    This whole things smells Fishy to me. Unless Imega is a KY business…

    But they’re not they are a Washington DC business. So what right do they have to take his domain name. ICANN isn’t in KY is it? This is either a Federal case or a Washington DC case.

    I see this being reversed the first time it gets to a court room outside of KY.

    Why is there no counter suit?

    Why did the domain registrar comply with a clearly invalid order to “freeze” a domain name?

    Is the domain registrar going to comly?

    Is IMEGA really going to roll over like it sounds and just “give up” these domains?
    What will happen to them if this decision stands? Can no one ever use them again? Can IMEGA sell them? Does the state of KY get them? Can they use them?

    So many unanswered questions here.

    I know the courts are REALLY shady in KY. My people (excuse me, “my kin”) are from KY. But I’m pretty confident this won’t stand out side of KY.

    I mean what if it was mail order and they sold some illegal fireworks,banned by state law, via the mail to KY? Could they go and just into another state confiscate the businesses phone number? Of course not, they could prosecute for selling fireworks, but not take his phone number in another state. It’s just ridiculous!

    They could prosecute them for selling liquor in a dry county.

  • http://www.controldatainc.com agency collection

    Lawyers celebrate anything that puts money in their pockets. Win, lose or draw the attorneys still get paid

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom