View current issue (PDF) - International Masters of Gaming Law

all video, skill, social and mobile games orcompetitions on shaky legal grounds, alongwith illegal gambling operations.MotivationThe motives invoked to justify stateintervention rely on the protection of publicinterest and public health as the governmentputs forth issues similar to those raised bygambling activities: risk of addiction, moneylaundering, fraud, manipulation of resultsdue to the use of bots.Regrettably, these motives do not rely onany facts, studies or numbers showing anykind of correlation between skill, social ormobile gaming and these risk factors.In the eyes of French authorities, a legalclarification is all the more needed as, in itsdecision of 17 January 2013, the Court ofAppeal of Toulouse held that, for experiencedplayers, poker could be considered a skillgame. Consequently, the defendants weredischarged from organizing illegal pokergames which involved more than a hundredplayers. This characterization would suggestthat it is possible to legally organize pokergames without having been previouslyauthorized which is why an amendmentclearly extending the scope of the prohibitionto skill games has been introduced.Legislative developments and agendaAmendment 960 was adopted in first readingduring the night of 27 to 28 June 2013without causing much of a stir, becomingthe current Article 72 quarter of the Bill onConsumption 3 .Any proposal to soften its provisions,whether within the Assemblée Nationaleor the Senate, such as the suggestions tosubject gaming to regulation 4 , carve outcompetitions 5 or only prohibit gameswhich contain a significant proportion ofchance 6 , were withdrawn or rejected forthe time being. Slight modifications aimedat the exclusion of postage fees from thenotion of financial sacrifice or the exclusionof promotional lotteries permitted underthe Consumer Code from the generalprohibition were however adopted furtherto the discussion of the Bill to before theinternal Commissions of the Senate 7 . A firstsign that there is still room for debate.The Bill will be examined and voted uponin a public session at the Senate duringthe first weeks of September. If the twochambers of Parliament agree on the samedraft, the Bill could already be adopted andtranslated into legislation.Critical assessmentArticle 72 quarter of the Bill on Consumptionoffers a welcomed harmonization of a legalframework on gambling so far constituted byscattered pieces of legislation and case law.Unfortunately, it does so at the expense of thestakeholders and legal certainty.Instead of enshrining once and for all thata game of chance is “a paying game wherechance predominates over skill and on thecombinations of intelligence to obtain theprize” as already defined by the OnlineGambling Act since 2010, the legislatorstretches the notion of chance beyond reasonin favour of a general prohibition whichis neither compatible with the legitimatedemand for entertainment arising frominformation technologies consumers, norwith the policy pursued on the other hand forregulated gambling.As pointed out correctly by Member ofParliament (and of the opposition) Jean-François Lamour in his speech before theAssemblée Nationale, a pure and simpleprohibition runs the risk to backfire andfuel the black market instead 8 ; because thedemand is not only undeniable, it is also verymuch legitimate in a modern economy.More alarmingly, in the absence ofa legal gaming offer, a pure and simpleprohibition also runs the risk to triggerplayer migration from gaming to gambling,which raises much more concerns in termsof pathological gambling and fraud.In the context of a gambling market opento competition since 2010, a strict prohibitionof gaming operations, whether skill, social ormobile, for reasons of public health and publicsafety hardly seems proportionate. On thecontrary, should the current version of the Billpass the vote, its provisions would breach thegeneral principles of freedom of commerceas well as the fundamental European lawprinciple of freedom of services provisioncontained in the Treaty on the Functioningof the European Union 9 . The suggestedchanges are simply not in line with anecessary, proportionate, non-discriminatory,coherent and systematic policy to fight againstfraud and addiction, as repeatedly requiredby European case law 10 if, on the other hand,gambling is open to licensing.Player protection and the fightagainst fraud and money-laundering areconsiderations called for by the gamingindustry and social media themselves sincelong-term growth in times of economicmodels based on user-generated content canonly be achieved in a trustworthy marketand through a trustworthy platform.Reasonable regulation is an essentialcomponent of a user’s trust towards theonline economy. A regulatory regimemindful of the actual issue at stake, namelythe risks brought by excessive speculation– naturally related to the level of chance– would be a positive improvement andactually allow operators to contribute tothe system by generating tax revenues.With regulatory requirements upon thegaming industry milder than those appliedto gambling (for instance by introducing anotification procedure rather than licenseapplications as such), the condition ofproportionality could be safeguarded in linewith sound EU law principles.TATJANA KLAESERTatjana Klaeser is a Member of theBrussels Bar Association and Headof Gaming Law Practice with Ulyslaw firm, to get in contact, email:tatjana.klaeser@ulys.net3http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl12-725.html.4See amendment n° 689 before the Assemblée Nationale by MP Sandrine Mazetier http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/amendements/1156/AN/689.asp.5See amendments n°11, 31 and 64 before the Senate http://www.senat.fr/amendements/commissions/2012-2013/725/Amdt_COM-11.html6See amendments n°14, 28 and 61 before the Senate http://www.senat.fr/amendements/commissions/2012-2013/725/Amdt_COM-61.html7See amendment n° 79 before the Senate http://www.senat.fr/amendements/commissions/2012-2013/725/Amdt_COM-79.html.8http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/cri/2012-2013/20130290.asp#P1813_3765.9h Refer to Article 56 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:en:PDF10CJEU, 24 March 1994, Case C-275/92, Schindler ; CJEU 21 Sept. 1999, Case C-124/97, Läärä ;CJEU, 21 Oct. 1999, Case. C-67/98, Zenatti ; CJEU, 6 Nov. 2003, Case. C-243/01, Gambelli ; CJEU,13 nov. 2003, Case C-42/02, Lindman ;CJEU, 6 March 2007, Case C-359/04, Placanica ; CJUE, 8 Sept. 2009, CaseC-42/07, Santa Casa ; CJUE, 3 June 2010, Case C-203/08, Sporting Exchange Ltd and CaseC-258/08, Ladbrokes ; CJUE, 8 July 2010, Case C-447/08 et C-448/08, Otto Sjöberg, AndersGerdin ; CJUE, 8 Sept. 2010, Case C-46/08, Carmen Media Group Ltd, Case C-316/07 MarkusStoB ; Case 409/06 Winner WettenGmbH ; CJUE, 9 Sept. 2010, Case C-64/08, Engelmann ; CJUE, 30 juin 2011, Case C-212/08,Zeturf.16 | European Gaming Lawyer | Autumn Issue | 2013