Gibson Dunn Team Sues Justice Department Over Reversal on Online Gambling
“The text, structure, and history of the Wire Act make clear that its prohibitions extend only to gambling on sporting events,” according to the complaint, filed in New Hampshire federal district court.
February 16, 2019 at 11:21 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Justice Department's abandoning of a 2011 opinion that had permitted certain forms of internet gambling drew a legal challenge Friday from an online lottery company, which said the government's abrupt reversal was “deeply flawed” and the product of a lobbying campaign by a prominent Las Vegas casino magnate.
The company, NeoPollard Interactive LLC, represented by the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Lottery Commission, represented by the state attorney general's office, filed a related challenge against the Justice Department. NeoPollard serves as the technology and service provider of the New Hampshire state iLottery system.
The lawsuits put a spotlight on a recent—and rare—decision by the Justice Department's legal counsel office to reverse an earlier memo that said the federal Wire Act only made online sports betting unlawful, not online lotteries.
A Wall Street Journal report in January said the change of position tracked a legal memo offered by lawyers for Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino titan. The Justice Department in the report denied there was any undue outside pressure compelling the legal counsel's office to reverse its position in the earlier memo, which was published in 2011.
The day after the new legal opinion's public release, on Jan. 15, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein issued a memo saying the Justice Department would wait 90 days before enforcing the broader interpretation of the Wire Act to give businesses that relied on the 2011 opinion “time to bring their operations into compliance with federal law.”
The Gibson Dunn team—including partner Matthew McGill and former U.S. solicitor general Theodore Olson, a leading appellate lawyer at the firm—asked a New Hampshire federal judge to reject the DOJ's new interpretation and declare that the Wire Act applies only to sports gambling. The lawsuit named newly confirmed Attorney General William Barr as a defendant.
“The text, structure, and history of the Wire Act make clear that its prohibitions extend only to gambling on sporting events,” the Gibson Dunn lawyers wrote in the complaint. The firm is working with Michael Delaney of the Manchester, New Hampshire, firm McLane Middleton.
The lawsuits contend that the Justice Department's move has thrown into question the legality of online lottery ticket sales in several states, including Michigan and New Hampshire, where it provides internet gambling technology. Those states, along with several others, began offering online gambling products after the Justice Department determined in 2011 that the Wire Act, a federal law that had lone been used to target online gambling, applied only to sports betting.
The New Hampshire attorney general's office noted that two federal appeals courts—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which covers New Hampshire, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit—have both held that the Wire Act applies strictly to sports betting, not online lotteries.
“As a result of the OLC's erroneous change in position, gaming activities long thought to be lawful are now under threat of imminent criminal and civil prosecution,” NeoPollard's lawyers wrote in the complaint. “This includes not only making lottery products available to consumers for purchase via personal computers and mobile devices, but also traditional lottery sales via brick-and-mortar retail sales agents.”
For Olson, who headed the OLC under the Reagan administration, Friday's lawsuit marked his latest argument in support of online gambling. Olson was a leading attorney supporting New Jersey's effort to legalize sports betting, in a case that led the Supreme Court last year to strike down a 1992 law that effectively banned commercial sports gambling in most states.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
5 minute readFederal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
As Uncertainty Hovers Over PGA Merger, LIV Golf Hires Entertainment Industry Veteran as Legal Chief
'Possible Harm'?: Winston & Strawn Will Appeal Unfavorable Ruling in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Stock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
- 2NY High Court Returns Fired Priest's Discrimination Claim to State Agency
- 3Digging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
- 4Reminder: Court Rules and Statutes Apply to Pendente Lite Custody Decisions
- 5Consumer Cleared to Proceed With Claims Against CVS 'Non-Drowsy' Medication, Judge Says
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250