The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 makes unlawful the
receipt by a gambling business of proceeds or monies in connection with
unlawful internet gambling. The Act, which represents the first piece of
Federal legislation to explicitly deal with online gambling, makes clear the
US government’s intention to stop the flow of funds from Americans to online
gaming operators through criminal sanction. The scope of the act is broad,
in so far as a “Restricted transaction” is taken to mean any transmittal of
money involved with unlawful Internet gambling, whilst a “bet” is construed
as including; “any instruction or information pertaining to the
establishment or movement of funds by the bettor or customer in, to, or from
an account with the business of betting or wagering.” The Act also provides
that an interactive computer service (ISP) may be asked by an Attorney or an
Attorney General to remove, or disable access to any online site that
violates the prohibitions contained within the Act. The site in question
must reside “on a computer server that such service controls or operates.”
This raises the prospect that the likes of Google and Yahoo might be asked
to erase from their search engines any links to websites that are seen to
violate the prohibitions contained in the act. This would include links to
some of the most infamous US-facing gambling portals; EOG, Casino City,
theonlinewire, Major Wager and Gambling911. Prior to the passing of the
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, much time was spent
musing over whether advertisements for online gambling constituted “aiding
and abetting” within the meaning of the U.S. Criminal Code. In Casino City,
Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civil Action, Casino City, funded by a number
of online sportsbooks, filed a suit against the Department Of Justice in
Louisiana, claiming that they it a right under the First Amendment to carry
online gambling advertisements. The Court claimed that there was no right
under the First Amendment to advertise services that are illegal or to
claim, or give the impression that online gambling was legal, when it
clearly was not. Drakos was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 90 days
on a manual labour program and three years’ probation for illegally
promoting gambling. County Assistant Prosecutor Melanie Smith said that
under state law, a person is guilty of promoting gambling when he or she
knowingly engages in conduct that “…materially aids any form of gambling
activity.” In a recent case brought by Nassau County Legislator Jeffrey
Toback, it was claimed that Google promoted and profited from child
pornography, to the degree that it formed part of the company’s business
model. Toback was reported as saying;

“Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to
block the search term ‘democracy,'” the complaint states, “but when it comes
to the protection and well-being of our nation’s innocent children,
Defendant refuses to spend a dime’s worth of resources to block child
pornography from reaching children.”

In repsonse to the charge, a Google spokesperson said that the company would
remove such material from its website where it had been made aware of it.
This policy is consistent with UK and US law, which states that a search
engine must remove illegal material, when it has been brought to its
attention.

It is not inconceivable that the scope of the Unlawful Internet Gambling
Enforcement Act of 2006, combined with a mindset that links online gambling
with child pornography, will lead to U.S. Attorneys or state Attorney
Generals enforcing a major clampdown on online gambling advertisements. This
is likely to include requests to google and yahoo to remove links to any
sites that are known to be violating the act.