RSS
Kentucky Supreme Court Overturns Ruling That Blocked State Seizure Of Gambling Domain Names
from the jurisdictional-mess dept
As you may recall, in a move that was blatantly designed to protect local gambling interests (no one denies this particular point), Kentucky passed a law allowing the governor to declare any gambling related website (even parked domains) "illegal gambling devices" and then to seize those domains. The governor moved to do so on over 100 domains -- none of which had anything to do with Kentucky whatsoever. Amazingly, a judge agreed that the governor had every right to seize these domain names, despite the lack of a Kentucky connection. It's not hard to see how problematic a ruling this is from a jurisdictional standpoint. Thankfully, the state's appeals court overturned the lower court ruling. Separately, a UK court ruled that Kentucky had no right to seize UK-based domains.
The state appealed the ruling in the appeals court, and many assumed that the Kentucky Supreme Court would agree with the basic logic of the appeals court. Instead Ragaboo alerts us to the news that the Kentucky Supreme Court has overturned the appeals court ruling, effectively allowing the state to seize the domain names again. The ruling focused on a technicality, rather than on the merits -- arguing that the Interactive Media and Gaming Association (iMEGA) and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC), two gaming associations who brought the lawsuit in the first place, had no standing in the case and could not bring the case in question.
The state appealed the ruling in the appeals court, and many assumed that the Kentucky Supreme Court would agree with the basic logic of the appeals court. Instead Ragaboo alerts us to the news that the Kentucky Supreme Court has overturned the appeals court ruling, effectively allowing the state to seize the domain names again. The ruling focused on a technicality, rather than on the merits -- arguing that the Interactive Media and Gaming Association (iMEGA) and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC), two gaming associations who brought the lawsuit in the first place, had no standing in the case and could not bring the case in question.
"Instead of owners, operators, or registrants of the website domain names, the lawyers opposing the Commonwealth claimed to represent two types of entities: (1) the domain names themselves and (2) gaming trade association who profess to include as members registrants of the seized domains, though they have yet to reveal any of their identities."Of course, it seems rather ironic that the issue here is standing, when you could just as easily ask what sort of standing the state of Kentucky has to seize a domain name based elsewhere? In the meantime, if any of the actual domain owners is willing to step forward, the case may be reheard -- and hopefully the Kentucky Supreme Court will rule against the state on the merits and the simple fact that seizing domain names that have nothing to do with Kentucky sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.
The court even acknowledged that the lawyers on behalf of the associations made "numerous, compelling arguments endorsing the grant of the writ of prohibition," but that "(a)lthough all such arguments may have merit, none can even be considered unless presented by a party with standing."
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Based on the text of the ruling, it wouldn't appear so, but I'm uncomfortable with the precedent this decision could be construed to set.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
what's next?
So, Kentucky goes to ICANN and demands the domain names?
Won't ICANN simply say, "You don't have standing to demand domain names." And not give it to them.
Would Kentucky have to sue in Federal Court to force action by ICANN? It is fairly likely no Federal court will support this sort of action by a State.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
mwahahahahahaha!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Seriously?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Turnabout is Fair Play...
I claim www.kylottery.com!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Because... why not? And why do we even consider them a real state? I mean, come on... Kentucky? It even sounds like the sort of place you'd only ever want to fly over.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So they can do whatever they want even if it makes not practical, legal or techonogical (not to mention moral) sense at all!
ttfn
John
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment