Lol Pokernews Is Funny

[garamond10pt 0]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=248101

Unfortunately, there's basically no real legal discussion in that thread.I think it boils down to this: Stars prohibits both multi-accounting and sharing accounts, but they probably don't really care about account sharing in and of itself; they dq'd the win primarily because of multi-accounting. The problem is that it's probably insanely difficult to prove multi-accounting for legal purposes since you actually have to show who was on each account and/or that they were communcating. Whereas for account sharing you only have to show that it wasn't her. So there's the factual question about who was on what account. I wish there was more information anywhere about what the legal question is. It sounds like there's two: 1) Is there a valid contract b/t stars and the players and 2) is the clause allowing them to DQ players for account sharing valid? It's the second question that's the big issue. Like, Teltscher has a pretty good argument that despite what the ToC says, Stars' actions in other scenarios show they don't care about sharing (e.g. general nonenforcement). My guess is that Stars will try to show the internal review for things like this and that this case passed a certain threshold that other cases didn't. There's also a small chance that if the internal processes are good enough that their findings will be allowable as fact, but that really depends on local law.