Italiens Tried To Blockade Regulator's Site

Published: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 Online-Casinos.com

ITALIANS TRIED TO BLOCKADE GAMBLING REGULATOR'S WEBSITE

But it didn't last long!

The Italian online gambling blockade seemed to enter a new phase this week amid reports of discussions with the Maltese regulator Lotteries and Gaming Authority (LGA) and opinions on the legality of this unilateral decree in terms of European Union policies.

Reports in the Maltese press suggest that three weeks on from the launch of its blockade of online gambling sites through Italian ISPs, the Italian regulatory body has yet to sit around the table and discuss the issue with the Maltese, who are disturbed that up to 80 of the sites which the LGA regulates are subject to the block.

Last week, the LGA's website, which now serves as the only form of access for Italian gamers to link up with the blocked Maltese gaming sites, was also blocked by Italian ISPs. The matter was reversed within hours, presumably after protests to the Italian authorities.

LGA CEO Mario Galea said he hoped the Italians would keep their word to start discussions: "The Italians understand they have no problems with us and said they are ready to meet us. If they don't, we would have to take diplomatic action, and that means the issue will be dealt with at government level," he said.

Over 80 sites licensed in Malta were blocked by Italy, part of a law enacted following its 2006 budget to block 684 online gaming sites not licensed in Italy on the grounds it was protecting Italian gamers from "phishing" - the fraudulent acquisition of passwords and credit card details.

AAMS, the Italian regulatory board has threatened Italian ISPs which do not block the websites with a daily fine of Euro 180 000 each time they allow someone to bet with a "blacklisted" company.

With feelings starting to run high, the Malta Remote Gaming Council said there is no reason why Maltese gambling websites should be included in the blockade, "...other than to protect the Italian government's monopoly which runs betting in Italy." The Italian state, together with a small number of state-authorised private partners, generated Euro 1.8 billion in revenues last year.

The Malta Remote Gaming Council (MRGC) has now directed its members to lodge a formal complaint with the European Commission against Italy and the AAMS, which will be sent in the name of all MRGC members.

Pressure on the Italians is mounting, with several major British online betting companies urging the European Commission to stop the blockade of offshore internet gambling businesses. The case is currently under review at the Director General (Competition.) Some UK gambling companies, under the aegis of the UK's Remote Gambling Association have sought legal advice.

Meanwhile, the LGA has not been sitting on its hands. The regulator carried out a publicity campaign on Italian media and online gambling forums to encourage players to visit its website as a work-around to access Maltese gambling sites.

Critics say Italy has blocked cross-gambling services in contravention of the ruling in the Gambelli case, where 3 years back Italian agents acting for the UK's Stanley International Betting Limited were prosecuted for contravening Italian law which forbade non-Italian concerns from accepting Italian bets.

The Gambelli precedent stated that EU member states could not block cross-gambling services, other than on grounds of moral objections.

Several other so-called "sovereignty" cases are currently in dispute, with European Union regulators about to issue legal challenges to France, Spain and other governments for hindering takeovers or competition in industries from energy to gambling, and a number of legal cases laid against EU national governments.

The commission has no real enforcement agency to back up the EU's market-opening laws, and must instead bring countries to the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice, which can order governments to bring their laws into compliance. Governments that ignore those decisions can face the sanction, rarely used, of a second lawsuit to seek monetary penalties.

The process typically takes years to get from warning to judgment.