Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Washington Public Policy & Budget News : Freedom Foundation : WA State Tax & Labor Law Commentary & Updates

Internet Community & Entertainment Corp., d/b/a Betcha.com v. State, No. 82845-8. Internet Community & Entertainment Corporation launched a website called Betcha.com -- a person-to-person betting site that allowed users to post wagers on the outcomes of a wide variety of events. Betcha.com charged its customers a fee for user transactions. Losing bettors had up to 72 hours after a winning claim was made to choose not to pay the loss.

In 2007, the Washington State Gambling Commission informed the company that Betcha.com was engaged in illegal gambling. The company sued the state seeking a declaratory judgment that its social wagering site does not violate state law. Betcha.com lost at superior court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that Betcha.com had not “gambled” because bettors understood that the losing bettor might not honor the debt.

The Supreme Court, with Justice Tom Sanders writing the unanimous opinion, reversed the Court of Appeals. The state Gambling Act prohibits bookmaking, which is defined as “accepting bets, upon the outcome of future contingent events, as a business or in which the bettor is charged a fee or ‘vigorish’ for the opportunity to place a bet.” RCW 9.46.0213. The court concluded that Betcha.com’s entire business model was based on charging fees from users for the opportunity to place a bet. Based on the conclusion that Betcha.com was engaged in prohibited bookmaking, the court declined to address whether the site’s users are actually engaged in gambling.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in four cases today (briefs and docket).

In the morning session:

Internet Community & Entertainment Corp., d/b/a Betcha.com v. State, No. 82845-8. In 2007, Internet Community & Entertainment Corp. was informed by agents of the Washington State Gambling Commission that its website Betcha.com was engaged in illegal gambling. The company sued the state seeking a declaratory judgment that its social wagering site does not violate state law. Betcha.com lost at the trial level. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that because Betcha.com customers agreed in advance that participants were not required to pay their losses, Betcha.com was not engaged in “gambling” as defined in the Gambling Act.

Rousso v. State, No. 83040-1. Lee Rousso, an amateur poker player, is challenging the state’s ban on internet gambling, arguing it violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Poker Players Alliance filed an amicus brief in support of Rousso's case.

In the afternoon session:

In re Detention of Gale West, No. 82568-8. In a civil commitment trial for an alleged sexually violent predator (SVP), does the respondent have a right to discover an expert witness’s prior evaluations of other suspected SVPs? Is it permissible for a witness to testify about the conditions and treatment phases at the Special Commitment Center?

In re Detention of Charles W. Post, No. 83023-1. In a civil commitment trial for an alleged sexually violent predator, is evidence about the treatment available at the Special Commitment Center admissible? Is evidence that a respondent, if released, could later be subject to another commitment proceeding upon commission of a “recent overt act” admissible?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link