European Gaming Lawyer magazine Spring 2014 | Page 26

For players, the introduction of an international network would
increase player choice, in number and type of peer-to-peer games
available (due to increased liquidity), provide access to higher jackpots
and more tournaments and thereby increase overall player satisfaction.
the gambling game. Therefore, they are
responsible for fairness of the game and will
monitor the gambling activity to ensure there
is no collusion and chip dumping occurring.
In this context it is worth pointing out
that some network providers provide what is
often referred to as an ‘end-to-end solution’
which means that the network provider also
fulfills the role of B2C partner, whilst other
network operators are solely responsible
for operating the gambling platform where
they contract with B2C partners across
international borders in the different home
jurisdictions.
Considering the risk associated with
the different role and functions of the B2C
and B2B operators within an international
pooling network it can be expected that
licensing and regulation will increasingly
becoming extraterritorial in that both B2C
and B2B operators, irrespective of whether
they are corporately and/ or physically
based in the home jurisdictions, will
become subject to licensing and regulation
in instances where they interact with the
players of the home jurisdictions.
The European scenario
The poker industry in Europe is in
decline. In the main, this is caused by
the requirement of Member States to
constrain the industry to national borders
and identity. The same situation prevails
elsewhere in the world as well. Most
industry observers have come to realise that

26 | European Gaming Lawyer | Spring Issue | 2014

this approach has to change if the industry
is to survive and government revenues are
to be sustained. In recent months a group of
regulators from six EU Member States have
held several multi-lateral discussions in the
hope to find a common approach towards
regulating cross-border pooling networks in
Europe. A resolution however seems as far
away as when the process commenced.
It must be presumed that the most
obvious sticking point in any such multilateral discussions is that the regulators
feel that their standards should be matched
by the others, and unfortunately entrenched
positions seldom allow this to happen. The
effect would, in the short term, imply that
regulators would have to cede that others
may have better or superior systems in
place and in the long-term it would reduce
the influence of each regulator if standards
were harmonised.
It can also be presumed that the issues
surrounding tax would be a sticking point
and also the fact that none of the major
poker platforms are located in the major
economies would present them with
difficulties. There are, of course, other
governmental policy positions at play
as well. Therefore, it is unlikely that the
industry is going to see a solution coming
from these discussions anytime soon.
Is there a way forward?
Alderney, as a jurisdiction, has been
considering the international pooling

landscape for some time and has come up
with a solution which might address most of
the above sticking points. Having considered
the outcome of discussions we have held with
several home jurisdictions over the last year,
it is evident that the regulatory approach best
suited to accommodate international pooling
networks ought to be based on the following
three assumptions:
• Participating jurisdictions and their
regulatory bodies should not be required to
amend their licensing regimes to participate
in an international pooling arrangement.
In particular, the regulatory requirements
in the various participating jurisdictions
pertaining to player protection should
remain the sole responsibility of the ^Y\