Kentucky Ruling: Beneficial for US Bingo Domain Owners
In the state of Kentucky, a certain court has thrown out a case stating to get on hold some of the top bingo and gambling domain named for illegal gambling as per order of the Kentucky governor. Bingo sites that are sought to seize includes domain names like usabingo.com, bingoknights.com, winabingo.com, and bingoworkz.com. Of the 141 list of domains, other target domains include some of the leading poker site like the pokerstars.com, fulltiltpoker.com, and ultimatebet.com. In addition, some major sports betting sites like the sportsbook.com and sportsbetting.com are also included in the list of targeted domains. Moreover, some of the casino websites are also included in the list, which includes the giant player Golden Palace Casino.
In October of 2008, the Kentucky State Governor Stephen Beshear filed a case against online gambling sites that took bets from Kentucky Citizens. He claims that the state should have the right to take the domain names of the said gambling, because online gambling is illegal in Kentucky. However, in a 2-to-1 majority opinion, rulings of the court were in favor of the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association or the iMEGA organization, who had presented many of the domain owners. Judge Thomas D. Wingate of the Franklin, Kentucky circuit court was ordered by the court to cancel his seizure orders against the domain names.
Judge Michelle M. Keller had found out in her majority opinion that internet domain names were not illegal gambling devices under the law of Kentucky, which have been claimed Kentucky Governor’s Attorneys. Judge Michelle said that it is possible for the commonwealth to include domains names in its gambling device legislations. However, in whatever reason, the Kentucky State has chosen not to.
Concluding that a series of number or internet address represent a machine or any mechanical or other device designed and manufactured specifically for the use or in connection with gambling, shows innocence. According to Judge Keller in writing that they are convinced of the trial court had committed a mistake in concluding that the domain name can be understood as a gambling device.
Judge Jeff S. Taylor backed the domain owners and was the second judge who did it, while one of those who opposed is Judge Michael Caperton. Judge Caperton wrote that internet domain name are in some other way part of a larger mechanism for gambling just like the computers and internet services, and therefore met the definition of a gambling device under the Law of Kentucky State.
While the decision is still temporary against domain owners, States may now be opted to change their legislation to include domain named as gambling device.