Views on Kentucky Gambling Domain Name Seizure Differ

Lawyers acting for both sides in the dispute where the Kentucky Governor managed to obtain a court order seizing over 140 online gambling-related domain names differ widely as to whether the state’s online gambling law can be enforced reports AP.A Lexington lawyer acting for the state, William C. Hurt Jr. contends the state has a right to seize the domain names of gambling Web sites because they constitute illegal gambling devices.”Louisville attorney R. Kenyon Meyer countered in a brief filed Friday on behalf of the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association that Kentucky doesn’t have jurisdiction in the case, that seizing domain names would be unconstitutional, and that domain names can’t be construed to be devices.”Meanwhile the Internet Commerce Association announced it will be participating in an emergency Summit on the State of Kentucky’s unprecedented, wrongful seizure of 141 Internet gambling Websites. Hosted by the Blue Grass Institute, the panel discussion will also include representatives from the Poker Players Alliance, Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association, and the Americans for Tax Reform organization. The Summit will be held on October 6, 2008.The Summit will focus on reasons why the State of Kentucky’s seizure of 141 Internet gambling was wrong, as it violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the state’s action lacks sufficient jurisdictional grounds. While Kentucky certainly has the right to regulate businesses that operate in the state and enforce the law within Kentucky, none of the domain names in the seizure order were registered or operated in Kentucky. The hearing for 141 domain names that Kentucky Governor Beshear ordered seized is scheduled for October 7.The AP story is available in full from www.kentucky.com/471/story/544519.html while a statement from the Internet Commerce Association is available from www.internetcommerce.org/Kentucky_Summit.