English High Court Denies Kentucky Jurisdiction Over UK Company

October 30, 2009 | News Category: Gaming Law

0 Comments

While both the state of Kentucky, iMEGA (Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association), and others wait for the deliberations of the Kentucky Supreme Court to be over, those interested parties in the United Kingdom do not really care one way or another what decision is made by the Kentucky Supreme Court.

The Kentucky Supreme Court is in the process of making a decision regarding the attempted seizure by the state of Kentucky, of 141 online gambling sites’ domain names. The state of Kentucky has attempted to seize the domain names as if they are considered to be gambling devices. Gambling devices may be seized under Kentucky law, however, the lower courts ruled that Internet domain names are not considered to be gambling devices, and can therefore not be seized according to the current law of Kentucky.

Although the state of Kentucky may not want to accept the ruling of the English High Court, the fact is that an English online casino that forms a part of the list of the 141 domain names in question, is bound by English law, and not American law.

Judge Michael Furness, an English High Court judge, ruled that Safenames, along with Pocket Kings, their online poker operator, are bound by English law, and not by any decision that is made in Kentucky, USA. According to English law, a foreign government is prohibited from enforcing laws that are either penal by nature, or governmental, in English jurisdictions.

Although the Kentucky Supreme Court has not yet made their decision regarding the domain name seizures, this ruling was brought down by the English High Court on October 16th, to preempt any decision that may be made in the future. This was done in order to ensure that the operations of Pocket Kings are not disturbed by any decisions regarding the domain name case in the United States, should the Supreme Court find in favor of the state of Kentucky.

A statement released by Safenames notes, "We are glad to have provided assistance in the clarification and determination of the order’s unenforceability in the United Kingdom and effective nullification of the Kentucky Court Order."

The verdict reached in the UK, that foreign registrars are not required to comply with the domain name seizure order since the US does not have jurisdiction over them, is consistent with legal opinions from both the United States and other areas around the world. Legal experts have questioned Kentucky’s attempt to shut down a worldwide online business, simply because its services were also available in their locality.