Party Gaming Responds to the State of Kentucky

November 19, 2010 | News Category: Gaming Law

0 Comments

The state of Kentucky recently added Party Gaming to the list of online casino companies that they have chosen to go after on tenuous charges in the hopes to recoup funds that had been lost by residents in the state who had gambled at Party Gaming in the past.

Party Gaming, however, did not take the accusations lying down, and has filed a counterargument that contains some particularly important points. Some of the points question whether the process in filing a complaint has been correct, and others deal with the vague accusations against Party Gaming, while yet other points question whether the law being invoked is in fact applicable to this situation.

Party Gaming argues that the "Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements for service of process set out in the Hague Convention. Nothing in the Hague Convention permits a Plaintiff to effect service of process by sending a copy of the summons and initial complaint via registered mail."

The Party Gaming attorneys also point out that J. Michael Brown, the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Secretary does not have the necessary standing to start the lawsuit. The attorneys note that the Attorney General is the only one who does have this standing, and that he has not "made an appearance, or participated in the filing of this action on the Commonwealth's behalf."

Party Gaming's counsel also note: "Plaintiff (the state of Kentucky) has failed to identify a single purported 'loser,' a single quantifiable loss, and a single date on which an alleged loss has occurred."

Party Gaming's attorneys continue to note that the plaintiff cannot allege sufficient facts to show that "Party Gaming is a 'winner' under the statute from which relief can be sought." Party Gaming asserts that if they were this alleged 'winner,' then they also had to risk being a 'loser.' However, this does not seem to be the case as the state lawyer, in his own words, said: "Party Gaming collected only a 'rake' or 'commission' from participants in poker games. a participation fee that could not be 'won' or 'lost' and was not affected by the ultimate 'winner' or 'loser' of the hand."

This is not the first time that there have been questions about whether the law that Kentucky invoked in order to go after the online gambling companies, is in fact applicable. The law was not designed to apply to online gaming, since it was on the books before online gambling existed.

Party Gaming has asked that the case against them be dismissed, since the "plaintiff is attempting to invoke a statute that 100 years of authority in the Kentucky courts illustrates was designed to serve a very different purpose."