Opinion: Double standard on Pala Band's online gaming license

That brings us back to last month's decision by the New Jersey DGE, which is the same entity that refused to give PokerStars a license in 2012 because they claimed Isai Scheinberg was a bad actor because of charges against him related to PokerStars' dealings with American customers. The NJDGE seemed to have no interest in the clean slate given to PokerStars by the federal government after paying a $400 million fine, repaying all players and purchasing Full Tilt Poker which saved the fed's behinds.

So here you had one decision which berated one company for having catered to U.S. players after the passing of the UIGEA while ignoring the wrongs of another company which did the same thing. To add fuel to the fire, the NJDGE recently reversed its opinion and gave PokerStars the go ahead to aplly for liecense in New Jersey after the sale to Amaya saying that "bad actors are people not companies." That same logic has been used to allow NETeller to offer payment processing services to New Jersey residents and ironically Pala Interactive which began operating in New Jersey last Saturday in partnership with Borgata is using NETeller as a payment processor.

The question that now has to arise is what is a bad actor? How is Isai Scheinberg a bad actor but Jim Ryan isn't? What about other companies that continued offering services to U.S. citizens but eventually withdrew? If Bodog poker wanted to partner with an Atlantic City casino and obtain a license from New Jersey would Calvin Ayre be deemed a bad actor which would disqualify Bodog? Does the fact that he no longer has any association with the gambling side of Bodog have any relevance to that decision?

Similarly if New Jersey gets the right to offer sports betting could companies like Pinnacle which catered to U.S. citizens until a few years back apply for a New Jersey license or would the state laugh at the suggestion even if Pinnacle could set up an alliance with a company like Caesars or Borgata? Would it matter whether the original owners were still associated with the company when making that decision?