Wpt Lawsuit

[DanielNegreanu 141]

This is an e-mail I recieved from someone earlier today and it echoes my thoughts exactly, but with a legal spin: I watched your video blog today and was really interested by the lawsuit situation. I asked my girlfriend (she's a lawyer) about the lawsuit, to find out if they have any grounds for either the anti-trust or the "civil" suit that has to do with the contracts and releases. Here are the reasons they're going to get shot down if they don't drop this lawsuit...and we'll start with the contracts and releases issue first: The reason this lawsuit is not going to work out...There is no way for any of these players to prove damages. You can only sue if you can "prove" that you've lost or are losing money because of contract. The court will not accept hypotheticals in a lawsuit like this. Since there is no way for any of these players to prove that they would actually make money in these tournament, there are no damages. We all know that any time you sit at the table, you can lose just as easily as you can win. Since the players can't prove that they're going to make it into the money every single time they play, they can't claim any damages against the WPT. Because the players have exclusive contracts with their respective websites, companies, etc.; the court is going to look at it as an either or scenario. Either they don't have exclusive contracts and play the events or they have exclusive contracts and don't play. The reasoning behind this? These players are in no way obligated to play ANY event, let alone the WPT events. Since that is the case, they can't claim damages against a company they're not legally involved with. Their participation in any WPT event is completely elective. Their only real course of action that might be put into action is if they filed an injunction against the WPT to get their release forms taken out of action. Basically, it would void the release forms allowing players to play and disallowing the WPT to use players' likeness for advertisement, merchandising and the like. However, according to my girlfriend/lawyer, even this scenario is highly unlikely. Also, because they are 'electing' to play in the event. Any time you have a distinctive choice there are too many variables. If this lawsuit were to be found in favor of the players the windfall of lawsuits to follow would be so huge that it would completely ruin the WPT and any other tournament series' out there that have similar release contracts. They will essentially ruin televised tournament poker. It seems extreme but it's a fact. As for the anti-trust portion of the lawsuit; they also have no grounds for this either. Since MGM/Mirage elected to sign an exclusive contract with the WPT no other tournament series will be played in their casinos until the contracts expire..aside from each property's respective in-house tournaments they hold on their own. This does hinder any other tour's ability to hold a televised tournament at a MGM/Mirage property but there is no anti-trust issues to be found. The reasoning is simple; there are so many properties in Las Vegas that don't have contracts, that they could have the tournaments in many other places. Now, if MGM/Mirage owned every casino in Las Vegas, there would be an anti-trust issue because they would be the only venue in Las Vegas and there would be nowhere else to hold a televised tournament. Since there would be no other venue in the area, you would have grounds for a suit. Because we have Harrah's, MGM/Mirage, Coast casinos, Maloof properties, Hilton, Stations, etc...it leaves too many open properties in town to hold a televised tournament...hence, no anti-trust. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for the players invloved in the lawsuit but, this is going to put poker as a whole under the microscope. We're already under scrutiny from the government for online gaming and this could open the doors for local, state and national governments to rewrite laws regarding poker. I love poker and I would hate to see more negative press than we're already receiving because of the issues of a few. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this! I know how busy you are but this was very important, for you and everyone else who is interested in this issue, to know. You are more than welcome to post this on the FCP forum for comment and debate, video/written blogs and articles. *Note: All issues discussed above are in the words of my attorney and I take no credit for this legal information/advice.

[rockytrh 0]

I think almost everybody here would agree that this is a stupid lawsuit and will do more harm than good to poker in general. I wish they would just drop the suit

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I'd be willing to bet Andy Bloch and co. $100,000 that they win absolutely nothing in the courts.

[hondovious 0]

I think most, and possibly all, of the players in the lawsuit are from the FT stable. Any chance they could have been the ones that instigated this?

[Stylin_Fish 0]

Forget the lottery, get rich the American way and sue somebody!

[Maniac 0]

So, is it safe to assume your going golfing today?

[joshrogo 0]

I'd be willing to bet Andy Bloch and co. $100,000 that they win absolutely nothing in the courts.

I would be willing to bet you $100,000 that the lawsuit settles long before it sees the inside of a courtroom.

[nwpdonk 0]

is it possible that they realize they have no chance to win in court but they've just decided that by sueing wpt they'll increase awareness on the issue and get wpt to cave into public opinion?

[Kain8 0]

You sure you're not a lawyer Daniel? That's pretty much what you said in your blog without the legal terminology in it. This will not end well for the players involved, and the WPT may just end up banning these players.

[Fluffdog87 2]

I'd be willing to bet Andy Bloch and co. $100,000 that they win absolutely nothing in the courts.

Daniel I am a huge fan of yours, but don't make this bet.Ask Andy Bloch why they will win, and you'll see why. I don't want to give a long explanation, but it is a open and shut case for the players here.The Anti-trust Law is so obviously broken in this case by the WPT in many regards.Hope I just saved you 100k.

[PokerFan 0]

You get 1000 laywers to say the players have no chance and I can get 1000 lawyers to say the WPT has no chance. personlly I think the WPT is on very thin ice here. My $100,000 bet is that there will be a confidencal financial settelment out of court with the WPT making the neccessary adjustments to their release. My question is why is DN so against the players on this one?

[SweetDaddyFreak 0]

I'd be willing to bet Andy Bloch and co. $100,000 that they win absolutely nothing in the courts.

After you win play double or nothing on Golden Tee

[esem 0]

Annie Duke, Howard Lederer,Phil Gordon, Greg Raymer, Joe Hachem, Andy Bloch and I am not sure who else is in on the suit. As far as my thoughts go on the suit, The only thing I could really aree with the players on is using their likenesses on video games, I think that's why the players are mad because the WPT is making money off the players by using them for marketing purposes. Other than that I think that if they don't like the rules they shouldn't play.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Daniel I am a huge fan of yours, but don't make this bet.Ask Andy Bloch why they will win, and you'll see why. I don't want to give a long explanation, but it is a open and shut case for the players here.The Anti-trust Law is so obviously broken in this case by the WPT in many regards.Hope I just saved you 100k.

I did speak to Andy Bloch. He went on one of his nutcase rants and is TOTALLY wrong about the anti-trust suit. It's seems so obvious to me. How could it be ILLEGAL for a casino to make a deal with the WPT to do shows with them exclusively? How? How is that possible??? So they can't do a show at Bellagio, BIG DEAL!! How about going to Caesar's, Wynn, Red Rock, Venetian, or a million other casinos that are totally available for them to do a show. Bellagio is a business, WPT is a business. They struck and exclusive deal, good for them... what right do any of us have to say that they can't do that? Why can't the WPT ask Bellagio for exclusivity with it's show?

[Encicra 0]

What needs to happen is that a majority of the players need to band together and have a 3rd party set up a new Poker Tour, where the players can have a large amount of input into the workings but so they will actually be able to participate in the event.If a tour got the support of the majority of pros, the public would quickly follow.(I put this in the wrong forum. so it's kind of double posted.)

[AcesUp46 0]

I would want to see someone take DN up on that bet. The Group of 7 should take it up.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

You get 1000 laywers to say the players have no chance and I can get 1000 lawyers to say the WPT has no chance. personlly I think the WPT is on very thin ice here. My $100,000 bet is that there will be a confidencal financial settelment out of court with the WPT making the neccessary adjustments to their release. My question is why is DN so against the players on this one?

I'm not AGAINST the players, I'm totally for the players. What these seven are trying to do won't help poker one bit. If anything, it will help take away a lot of the freedoms we have right now. These 7 people don't represent the "players." They certainly don't represent me or my views at all. This whole thing is so insane. BIG DEAL they can't play the WPT, whoopie... I don't think anybody is going to cry about them being gone. I mean seriously, it's not like the WPT needs that group of seven to keep their show on the air. They have a release you have an OPTION to sign. No one is putting a gun to their head. They don't like the show, DON'T PLAY!!! This makes me so sick.

[AcesUp46 0]

I did speak to Andy Bloch. He went on one of his nutcase rants and is TOTALLY wrong about the anti-trust suit. It's seems so obvious to me. How could it be ILLEGAL for a casino to make a deal with the WPT to do shows with them exclusively? How? How is that possible??? So they can't do a show at Bellagio, BIG DEAL!! How about going to Caesar's, Wynn, Red Rock, Venetian, or a million other casinos that are totally available for them to do a show. Bellagio is a business, WPT is a business. They struck and exclusive deal, good for them... what right do any of us have to say that they can't do that? Why can't the WPT ask Bellagio for exclusivity with it's show?

I'm no legal expert but I believe this line of reasoning is wrong...that just because both agreed, it should be ok. If the deal impedes free competition, then from a economico-legal point of view, there are definitely grounds for a lawsuit. I've spoken to some friends who are currently in law school and sent them the link about the lawsuit and all of them agree that the group of 7's has a case in that the exclusive agreements between WPTE and the casinos are anti-competitive. What may hinder them though is that they need to prove that they have lost money (or other things that can be quantified monetarily) due to these arrangements. If their "loss" can't be proven, this case is gone.

They have a release you have an OPTION to sign. No one is putting a gun to their head. They don't like the show, DON'T PLAY!!! This makes me so sick.

Again, I respectfully disagree. It's like racist restaurants with segregated seating back in the day. "If you don't want to eat in the Black ppl area, then don't eat here! Eat elsewhere!" Just because they have an alternative option and they aren't forced, doesn't make the casinos actions legal. The key to this lawsuit is whether or not the agreements violate anti-trust laws. And this will be seen in the court arguments.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I'm no legal expert but I believe this line of reasoning is wrong...that just because both agreed, it should be ok. If the deal impedes free competition, then from a economico-legal point of view, there are definitely grounds for a lawsuit. I've spoken to some friends who are currently in law school and sent them the link about the lawsuit and all of them agree that the group of 7's has a case in that the exclusive agreements between WPTE and the casinos are anti-competitive. What may hinder them though is that they need to prove that they have lost money (or other things that can be quantified monetarily) due to these arrangements. If their "loss" can't be proven, this case is gone.

No, because the only way that would be true would be if the WPTE had exclusive rights to film their events at all of the Las Vegas properties. They don't. They only have deals with MGM/Mirage and the Mandalay Bay. People are free to shoot poker shows anywhere they want in Las Vegas. That doesn't curb competition as far as poker show's are concerned.

[toddkrit 0]

It seems like the 7 arent making a good choice here. With everything going on about internet poker in the news and courts right now, they should just stay on the down low. Alot of those guys are hooked up with online sites, and this is just going to be another black and blue mark on poker. With so many people flocking to the WSOP and the public opinion of poker at its highest theres a chance that public opinion could help out with some of these court proceedings. The fact that some of the more well known players would pick this time to sue just doesnt seem very smart. :huh:P.S. Hope you do well at the main event Daniel.

[Murphinator 0]

I'm gonna have to side with Daniel on this one, I really don't see how the WPTE's deal with a few casinos is violating any anti-trust laws when both parties agreed. Hopefully they drop the case or it gets settled out of court which probably isn't going to happen.This is off-topic but Daniel what day do you start the Main Event?

[mcpickl 0]

Daniel,Didn't you at one time have a problem with the WPT release form? I'm not positive, but I think you wrote about it once and you talked to Steve Lipscomb about it. If I am correct, have they since changed the release form, or have you just decided to live with it?thanks

I'm gonna have to side with Daniel on this one, I really don't see how the WPTE's deal with a few casinos is violating any anti-trust laws when both parties agreed. Hopefully they drop the case or it gets settled out of court which probably isn't going to happen.This is off-topic but Daniel what day do you start the Main Event?

I think a case could be made by the players IF they can convince the courts that the premier casinos and the WPT made the exclusive contracts. For instance, if an manufacturer of autoparts made an exclusive deal to make engines for Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, BMW, Honda, Mercedes Benz and Hyundai. A case could be made that that manufacturer has a monopoly on the market even though you could still buy a Suzuki or an Isuzu without having to pay an exorbitant price for the engine. I realize this example is far-fetched, but my brain hurts, it's the best i can think of on short notice. Can the players convince the courts that this is the case, very unlikely, but I would think claiming the WPT has monopolized the market is an avenue they could pursue.

[rchang 0]

Daniel,Didn't you at one time have a problem with the WPT release form? I'm not positive, but I think you wrote about it once and you talked to Steve Lipscomb about it. If I am correct, have they since changed the release form, or have you just decided to live with it?thanks

I believe Daniel was upset they used his name without his consent on the WPT website to promote the show.

[herokid7 0]

Daniel,Didn't you at one time have a problem with the WPT release form? I'm not positive, but I think you wrote about it once and you talked to Steve Lipscomb about it. If I am correct, have they since changed the release form, or have you just decided to live with it?thanksI think a case could be made by the players IF they can convince the courts that the premier casinos and the WPT made the exclusive contracts. For instance, if an manufacturer of autoparts made an exclusive deal to make engines for Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, BMW, Honda, Mercedes Benz and Hyundai. A case could be made that that manufacturer has a monopoly on the market even though you could still buy a Suzuki or an Isuzu without having to pay an exorbitant price for the engine. I realize this example is far-fetched, but my brain hurts, it's the best i can think of on short notice. Can the players convince the courts that this is the case, very unlikely, but I would think claiming the WPT has monopolized the market is an avenue they could pursue.

Daniel had a problem with the WPT not allowing logos. They are allowed now.

[sloshr 0]

This is the same as the deal where McDonalds has an exclusive deal to only serve Coke products at all of their franchises. I'm going to contact Pepsi to see if we have a lawsuit there. Maybe I can get rich after all. Then I can switch sides and get Coke to sue KFC. This is the American way.