|
Yes, that is a title of a real, current legal case and controversy.
(And, no, the links in this post are not spam… mostly gambling news sites seem to be reporting on this.)
The Governor of Kentucky, through his Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, has moved in court to have 141 gambling-related domain names transferred to the Kentucky state government, partially because other legal gambling operations in Kentucky, like horseracing, lose revenue to online gaming. Yes, you read that right: by allegedly violating KY law, the state can move to have property used in these unlawful acts transferred to the state. In this case, the “property” in question is the domain names themselves.
This case is definitely novel in the realm of cyberlaw, but also is a bit controversial for how it originally proceeded. At first, the state met with the judge in a unilateral hearing where the judge granted a seizure order directing the registrars of each domain name to transfer the domain name to the state of Kentucky (a few registrars transferred the domain names immediately upon receiving the order). The judge also then established a date for a forfeiture hearing (think of it as a last chance opportunity for affected parties to appear and dispute the seizure of their property). A phalanx of attorneys for various gambling outfits (presumably, see below) as well as industry and players associations showed up to this original hearing. The judge decided to accept briefing on the various issues presented; his order was due on Wednesday but was delayed until yesterday due to a computer glitch.
Judge Wingate’s order was handed down on Thursday. There’s so much interesting stuff in this case, perhaps it deserves a few more posts; I’d like to highlight a few things:
What’s the upshot of all of this? To me, it’s pretty scary: A state government moved to order seizure of domain names that it found were illegal “devices” and a judge issued an order demanding the transfer of these domain names before any hearing or opportunity to protest. The state has so far successfully argued that domain names are property and devices used for illegal gambling within Kentucky and that the 141 Domain Names defendants must identify themselves to have standing to contest the seizure and forfeiture. The last shoe to drop is that Judge Wingate, as part of his order from yesterday, ordered the state to rescind any forfeiture for gambling sites that block Kentucky gamers using geographical blocking methods (the wording was, essentially: Defendants who install a “software or device [...] which has the capability to block and deny access to [the defendant’s] online gambling sites [...] from any users or consumers within the [...] Commonwealth [of Kentucky] and reasonably establishes to the [state] or this Court that such geographical blocks are operational, shall be relieved from the effects of the Seizure Order and from any further proceedings [in this action.]”).
What is to stop other local governments from mandating blacklisting of geographical user bases (despite the plain futility of this protection measure)? What’s to stop an authoritarian state from seizing the domain name of a dissident group? I don’t see a good solution.
Finally, the only general amicus brief submitted was from the Internet Commerce Association representing domain name registrars. Where is the public interest voices in this? Where are my friends from the Electronic Frontier Foundation?
This post has been reproduced here with kind permission from Freedom to Tinker
Sponsored byVerisign
Sponsored byIPv4.Global
Sponsored byWhoisXML API
Sponsored byCSC
Sponsored byVerisign
Sponsored byRadix
Sponsored byDNIB.com
Thank you for a posting this article. We need to see more mainstream opposition to this ruling. If the ruling stands, much more than gambling sites are put at risk.
Correction - Internet Commerce Association has a few members that own registrars, but we represent registrants, not registrars. ICA represents domain investors, developers and the direct search industry.
Significantly, the plaintiff is not the State of Kentucky represented by its attorney general. Instead, the governor hired a private firm to pursue this matter on a fee basis which is presumably knowable to the citizens of the Bluegrass State. The governor had run on a platform of increased in-state gambling. Accordingly, as with other land-based gambling concerns, the gambling interests in Kentucky recognize the competition from online gambling, and this action is nothing other than pure political quid pro quo.
The state AG has expressly disavowed involvement in the matter, and requested at least one online commentator to correct an initial statement assuming the AG’s office was involved. Such sensitivity suggests the AG is aiming for “distinction for the uninvolved” at the terminal phase of this pet project of the governor.