Kentucky Court Stops Governor's Move To Seize Online Gambling Domain Names

An AP story today reports that a three-judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals rejected the move by the state to seize the internet domain names from 141 online gambling and related websites. This move by Kentucky was done to stop these sites from being accessible by Kentucky residents. You would think all they had to do was just ask the sites to block Kentucky-based IP addresses. Nope. Seems like some folks aren't that bright in Kentucky, particularly the Governor.

Governor Beshear's apparent intent was to keep out gambling competition from hurting the state's horse racing industry, but the way he went about it was very unusual. Quoting from an article in the December issue of CAP Magazine, attorney Martin Owens describes that the person expected to enforce state laws, the Attorney General, was not the person who filed suit. It was done by a state agency named the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, whose charter covers prisons, public defenders and coroners. The agency does not have charter that covers telecommunications or gambling. It gets more unusual. The agency actually hired an outside, private law firm to file the suit. Now there's a wise use of taxpayer dollars in this economic environment.

The AP quotes Judge Michelle Keller, who wrote the majority opinion, "It stretches credulity to conclude that a series of numbers, or Internet address, can be said to constitute a 'machine or any mechanical or other device ... designed and manufactured primarily for use in connection with gambling,'" So, in other words, an IP address is not a gambling device.

Mr. Owens in his article cites Kentucky Revised Statutes Section 528.010 which defines gambling devices. Gambling devices are defined as those things which, "...when operated may deliver, as the result of the application of an element of chance, any money or property, or by the operation of which a person may become entitled to receive (them)." 1

It is extremely plain that a website address or domain name doesn't even come close to the definition of a gambling device. Mr. Owens also makes very clear the nonsense being attempted by the Governor. He equates the logic of this suit to trying to arrest the house address numbers of a building where gambling occurred.

I think Kentucky better stick to raising horses and making bourbon rather than trying to set unusual legal precedent. But they won't. The Governor's office has already stated its intent to appeal the ruling.


References

1. Owens M. (2008, December/2009, January), All Eyes On Kentucky, CAP Magazine, 51-52.