Betting Account Forced to be Closed by Connecticut Attorney General

[highnote]

The Racing Channel sent me a check and a letter today. Their letter states:

The Connecticut Attorney General has expressed concerns pertaining to the legality of Connecticut residents placing pari-mutuel wagers through account wagering services. As a result, TRC has ceased accepting wagers from Connecticut account holders. Furthermore, in compliance with this mandate we have formally closed all TRC accounts from Connecticut.

Well, I checked the website for Connecticut Off Track Betting -- a state sanctioned monopoly -- to see what they said about non-CT residents opening accounts with them. Here is what their website says:

To establish and/or maintain a wagering account, the applicant must:
• Be a resident of the State of Connecticut or one of the states from which Winners accepts accounts (please refer to the Website for a list of eligible states). Residents outside the State of Connecticut will not be able to open online accounts or place wagers over the Internet but can place wagers over the telephone using the live operator (“Telebet”) or Automated Teller wagering services.

So how is it OK for non-CT residents to bet with CT OTB, but not OK for CT residents to bet with out-of-state advance deposit wagering companies?

Seems like a restriction of trade and unconstitutional to me.

[jk3521]

May ask which state you wager from?

[wiffleball whizz]

I didn't like Connecticut one bit I lived there for 4 years....

When I go visit my gf there I don't even give them any action....we'll I mean I may not give them any action

[Robert Goren]

States restricting how their residents can wager is getting to be "old news". I knew this was going to happen when the first ADWs came on line. The only surprising thing is that it took so long.

[highnote]

May ask which state you wager from?


I used to wager from Connecticut. I still live here.

When Blumenthal was AG he forced Xpressbet to shut down accounts of CT residents because they had no way to distinguish between online bettors and phone bettors. He said CT didn't allow online betting.

I complained that the Automated Teller at CT OTB could be accessed over the internet using Skype so this was in effect internet betting.

He replied that I would NOT be arrested for betting.

I dropped the matter after that, but wondered why the hell he was making a big deal out of nothing.

He also forced a TV show of live horse race broadcasting (if memory serves me correctly) to shut down claiming it would cause a proliferation of gambling.

I almost fell out of my chair when I read that story. CT has one of the largest casinos in the northern hemisphere at Foxwoods and he's worried about the proliferation of gambling because of horse racing? He didn't have to kill the show. The show wouldn't have lasted 6 months.

I suspect Jepsen is trying to score political points somehow showing he is tough on gambling -- gambling on a sport that very few in CT care about or participate in.

[stoneisland]

Seems like a restriction of trade and unconstitutional to me.

I can't think of any of the commerce clause cases that would touch on your situation. States, according to the IXth and Xth Amendments, have broad police powers, including, I presume, the regulation of gaming.

Just because a policy is bad, or stupid, or something you disagree with, doesn't mean that the state doesn't have the power to do it.

[redshift1]

I suspect Jepsen is trying to score political points somehow showing he is tough on gambling -- gambling on a sport that very few in CT care about or participate in.

Exactly, very little to do with gambling/horse racing and everything to do with promoting political aspirations. Horse racing is low hanging fruit for politicians wanting easy exposure without repercussions.
.

[highnote]

I can't think of any of the commerce clause cases that would touch on your situation. States, according to the IXth and Xth Amendments, have broad police powers, including, I presume, the regulation of gaming.

Just because a policy is bad, or stupid, or something you disagree with, doesn't mean that the state doesn't have the power to do it.


NY State had a similar situation with wine sales. They allowed NY wine to be bought online and shipped out of state, but New Yorkers could not order online from an out of state wine seller and have the wine shipped in to NY.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Prohibition-era wine laws that had - up until 2005 - prevented interstate wine sales.

When this wine law was struck down inter-state betting policy changed in NY and New Yorkers could have betting accounts outside of NY.

A state can't have it both ways. CT can't allow out of state bettors to have accounts with an in state wagering company but restrict in state bettors from having out of state wagering accounts.

That said... I could be mistaken about the NY situation because it happened several years ago, but this is my recollection of how it played out.

[highnote]

Here is a list of states that residents of those states can place bets with CT OTB:

... accepts telephone wagering from legal residents of the following States: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia & Wyoming.

Yet CT residents cannot place bets with adw's in those states.

[stoneisland]

NY State had a similar situation with wine sales. They allowed NY wine to be bought online and shipped out of state, but New Yorkers could not order online from an out of state wine seller and have the wine shipped in to NY.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Prohibition-era wine laws that had - up until 2005 - prevented interstate wine sales.

When this wine law was struck down inter-state betting policy changed in NY and New Yorkers could have betting accounts outside of NY.

A state can't have it both ways. CT can't allow out of state bettors to have accounts with an in state wagering company but restrict in state bettors from having out of state wagering accounts.

That said... I could be mistaken about the NY situation because it happened several years ago, but this is my recollection of how it played out.

The case is Granholm. In any case, states can mandate that alcohol be purchased through state stores, or only at certain times, or only from stores with a special hard-to-get license, or not on Sundays, etc...

The key is how CT's regulation is written. For example, they may have a licensing procedure that no out-of-state ADW meets, but their own in-state system does. Those out-of-state ADW's could theoretically spend the time and money to become compliant, but may not yet have made the effort.

[highnote]

I found out that my The Racing Channel account was closed because The Racing Channel is NOT licensed in CT, therefore, CT residents can not bet with them.

So I am in the process of finding out which states CTOTB is licensed in to be able to take bets from those residents of those states.

I mentioned that I am a member of HANA to one individual. The individual said, "Oh... so you're the group that is behind the Churchill Downs takeout dispute." I said yes. The individual said, in what I felt was a very sincere tone, "I'm rooting for you."

Good to know HANA is on the radar of a lot of industry people.

[highnote]

The PA Dept. of Agriculture has jurisdiction of pari-mutuel wagering -- not the PA Gaming Control Board.

Gotta love state gov.

[Rise Over Run]

I didn't like Connecticut one bit I lived there for 4 years....

When I go visit my gf there I don't even give them any action....we'll I mean I may not give them any action

Who doesn't get the action, the ponies or your girlfriends? :lol: :lol:

[Hoofless_Wonder]

How many racetracks are in Connecticut again? :confused:

[duncan04]

States restricting how their residents can wager is getting to be "old news". I knew this was going to happen when the first ADWs came on line. The only surprising thing is that it took so long.


Thats why I love living in the Bluegrass state!