Back to Topics
Legislation 1961

The Federal Wire Act of 1961 and Online Betting

The **Federal Wire Act of 1961** was originally enacted to dismantle organized crime's control over telephone-based bookmaking. In the internet era, it became the central battleground for the legality of online gambling. **Key developments include:** * **The 2011 DOJ Opinion:** A pivotal reinter...

Summary

The **Federal Wire Act of 1961** was originally enacted to dismantle organized crime's control over telephone-based bookmaking. In the internet era, it became the central battleground for the legality of online gambling. **Key developments include:** * **The 2011 DOJ Opinion:** A pivotal reinterpretation limiting the Act's scope solely to **sports betting**, thereby legalizing state-regulated online lotteries and casinos. * **The 2018 Reversal & *Rosen* Case:** A failed attempt by the DOJ to re-expand the Act to cover all gambling, which was overturned by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021. * **Current Status:** The Act remains in force for sports betting, mandating a **ring-fenced market structure** where operators must locate servers within each legal state and cannot pool sports betting liquidity across state lines.

The Federal Wire Act of 1961 and Online Betting

The Federal Wire Act of 1961 was enacted to dismantle organized crime's control over telephone-based bookmaking. In the internet era, it became the central battleground for the legality of online gambling.

Introduction to the Act

The Federal Wire Act of 1961, signed into law by President John F. Kennedy, aimed to curb the influence of organized crime on sports betting operations that utilized wire communication [1]. The original intent was to prevent the use of interstate wires for betting on sports events, thereby disrupting the financial backbone of organized crime.

Key Developments and Interpretations

Over the years, the Act has undergone significant reinterpretations, shaping the landscape of online betting in the United States.

  • The 2011 DOJ Opinion: A pivotal reinterpretation by the Department of Justice limited the Act's scope to sports betting, effectively legalizing state-regulated online lotteries and casinos [2]. This decision marked a significant shift, as it opened avenues for states to regulate and operate online gambling platforms beyond sports betting.
  • **The 2018 Reversal & Rosen Case**: An attempt by the DOJ to re-expand the Act's scope to cover all forms of online gambling was met with legal challenges. The Rosen v. United States case, decided by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021, overturned this reversal, reaffirming the 2011 opinion's limitations [3].
  • Current Status: The Federal Wire Act remains in force, specifically for sports betting, necessitating a ring-fenced market structure. This structure requires operators to locate their servers within each legal state and prohibits the pooling of sports betting liquidity across state lines, ensuring that each state maintains regulatory control over its sports betting operations.

Conclusion

The evolution of the Federal Wire Act of 1961, from its inception to current interpretations, underscores the dynamic legal landscape of online betting in the United States. Through a series of legal challenges and reinterpretations, the Act's scope has been refined, currently permitting state-regulated online gambling activities outside of sports betting while maintaining stringent regulations on sports betting operations.

References

[1]: US Department of Justice. (1961). The Federal Wire Act.

[2]: US Department of Justice. (2011). 2011 DOJ Opinion.

[3]: First Circuit Court of Appeals. (2021). Rosen v. United States.

References & Further Reading

  • 1.
    18 U.S.C. § 1084 - Transmission of wagering information; penalties View Source →
  • 2.
    DOJ Office of Legal Counsel: Whether the Wire Act Applies to Non-Sports Gambling (2011) View Source →
  • 3.
    New Hampshire Lottery Commission v. Rosen, 986 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2021) View Source →
  • 4.
    United States v. Cohen, 260 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2001) View Source →