Stars .FR etc

[jjandellis]

Sent Stars e-mail asking about .dk and .es and got this reply:

Hello Lee,

Thank you for contacting PokerStars.

Please be aware that in order to play for real money on other licenses (i.e. FR, ES, IT, ) you need to live in the country where the license applies.

If you do not live in any of these countries you will not be able to play on their respective platforms for real money.

You can still download the licensed application and create your own account, but no real money games will be accessible.

Should you need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Regards,

Giuliano
PokerStars Support Team

Kinda puzzles me as many are playing .fr

Is it not 100% legit to play stars.fr??

[Pinchop73]

French government happy for outsiders to play (as they would be with their extra cut).

Spanish, Italian etc not, residents only.

[Longy]

Denmark are part of the global player pool on .com

They simply are seperatered off so the Danish government gets their cut, believe the VIP reward system is a lot worse for Danish players.

[TL900]

Denmark are part of the global player pool on .com

same for .be and I would guess quite a few others

[The Squid]

Didn't someone challenge .it segregation? Pretty sure that separating themselves from the common market with regards to poker wouldnt stand up if someone challenged it in European Court.

[AlunB]

Didn't someone challenge .it segregation? Pretty sure that separating themselves from the common market with regards to poker wouldnt stand up if someone challenged it in European Court.

EU is pretty clear that if you're doing it in an open manner, allowing free competition, and doing it to protect your citizens then it's OK.

[doubleup]

Didn't someone challenge .it segregation? Pretty sure that separating themselves from the common market with regards to poker wouldnt stand up if someone challenged it in European Court.

EU is pretty clear that if you're doing it in an open manner, allowing free competition, and doing it to protect your citizens then it's OK.

hmmm not really, but the effort to implement "single market" type rules has faltered.

[AlunB]

Didn't someone challenge .it segregation? Pretty sure that separating themselves from the common market with regards to poker wouldnt stand up if someone challenged it in European Court.

EU is pretty clear that if you're doing it in an open manner, allowing free competition, and doing it to protect your citizens then it's OK.

hmmm not really, but the effort to implement "single market" type rules has faltered.

What are you actually referring to here by single market rules?

To the best of my knowledge the EU has consistently ruled that protecting a monopoly or restricting a gambling market can be justified if it's on consumer protection grounds and actions are consistent with this.

Also worth pointing out that in my 10 years covering the online gambling industry no nation state has ever paid the slightest attention to anything the EU says on this.

[doubleup]

Didn't someone challenge .it segregation? Pretty sure that separating themselves from the common market with regards to poker wouldnt stand up if someone challenged it in European Court.

EU is pretty clear that if you're doing it in an open manner, allowing free competition, and doing it to protect your citizens then it's OK.

hmmm not really, but the effort to implement "single market" type rules has faltered.

What are you actually referring to here by single market rules?

To the best of my knowledge the EU has consistently ruled that protecting a monopoly or restricting a gambling market can be justified if it's on consumer protection grounds and actions are consistent with this.

Also worth pointing out that in my 10 years covering the online gambling industry no nation state has ever paid the slightest attention to anything the EU says on this.

The thing is that the justifications are almost always bogus and protectionism is the true motivation.  Various court actions were halted and the EU launched a consultation on the issue.  Ultimately all that came out of that was some drivel from the EU parliament about eg banning betting on red cards.

Anyway getting back to the OP, as the uk is legislating to bring all uk gambling under the control of the gambling commission (with associated taxes), I would think that .fr will probably not be an option.

[AlunB]

Didn't someone challenge .it segregation? Pretty sure that separating themselves from the common market with regards to poker wouldnt stand up if someone challenged it in European Court.

EU is pretty clear that if you're doing it in an open manner, allowing free competition, and doing it to protect your citizens then it's OK.

hmmm not really, but the effort to implement "single market" type rules has faltered.

What are you actually referring to here by single market rules?

To the best of my knowledge the EU has consistently ruled that protecting a monopoly or restricting a gambling market can be justified if it's on consumer protection grounds and actions are consistent with this.

Also worth pointing out that in my 10 years covering the online gambling industry no nation state has ever paid the slightest attention to anything the EU says on this.

The thing is that the justifications are almost always bogus and protectionism is the true motivation.  Various court actions were halted and the EU launched a consultation on the issue.  Ultimately all that came out of that was some drivel from the EU parliament about eg banning betting on red cards.

Anyway getting back to the OP, as the uk is legislating to bring all uk gambling under the control of the gambling commission (with associated taxes), I would think that .fr will probably not be an option.

No I don't disagree. I struggle to remain interested a lot of the time. So much hot air and so many seemingly pointless rulings. Second only to Antigua v US in wasted effort.

[AlunB]

Didn't someone challenge .it segregation? Pretty sure that separating themselves from the common market with regards to poker wouldnt stand up if someone challenged it in European Court.

EU is pretty clear that if you're doing it in an open manner, allowing free competition, and doing it to protect your citizens then it's OK.

hmmm not really, but the effort to implement "single market" type rules has faltered.

What are you actually referring to here by single market rules?

To the best of my knowledge the EU has consistently ruled that protecting a monopoly or restricting a gambling market can be justified if it's on consumer protection grounds and actions are consistent with this.

Also worth pointing out that in my 10 years covering the online gambling industry no nation state has ever paid the slightest attention to anything the EU says on this.

The thing is that the justifications are almost always bogus and protectionism is the true motivation.  Various court actions were halted and the EU launched a consultation on the issue.  Ultimately all that came out of that was some drivel from the EU parliament about eg banning betting on red cards.

Anyway getting back to the OP, as the uk is legislating to bring all uk gambling under the control of the gambling commission (with associated taxes), I would think that .fr will probably not be an option.

Before someone loses the plot he means taxes for the gambling companies not you lot

[mondatoo]

Didn't someone challenge .it segregation? Pretty sure that separating themselves from the common market with regards to poker wouldnt stand up if someone challenged it in European Court.

EU is pretty clear that if you're doing it in an open manner, allowing free competition, and doing it to protect your citizens then it's OK.

hmmm not really, but the effort to implement "single market" type rules has faltered.

What are you actually referring to here by single market rules?

To the best of my knowledge the EU has consistently ruled that protecting a monopoly or restricting a gambling market can be justified if it's on consumer protection grounds and actions are consistent with this.

Also worth pointing out that in my 10 years covering the online gambling industry no nation state has ever paid the slightest attention to anything the EU says on this.

The thing is that the justifications are almost always bogus and protectionism is the true motivation.  Various court actions were halted and the EU launched a consultation on the issue.  Ultimately all that came out of that was some drivel from the EU parliament about eg banning betting on red cards.

Anyway getting back to the OP, as the uk is legislating to bring all uk gambling under the control of the gambling commission (with associated taxes), I would think that .fr will probably not be an option.

Before someone loses the plot he means taxes for the gambling companies not you lot

Yeah coz I'm sure those lovely people at Pokerstars and elsewhere will take the hit instead of funnelling it down to the players 

[AlunB]

Didn't someone challenge .it segregation? Pretty sure that separating themselves from the common market with regards to poker wouldnt stand up if someone challenged it in European Court.

EU is pretty clear that if you're doing it in an open manner, allowing free competition, and doing it to protect your citizens then it's OK.

hmmm not really, but the effort to implement "single market" type rules has faltered.

What are you actually referring to here by single market rules?

To the best of my knowledge the EU has consistently ruled that protecting a monopoly or restricting a gambling market can be justified if it's on consumer protection grounds and actions are consistent with this.

Also worth pointing out that in my 10 years covering the online gambling industry no nation state has ever paid the slightest attention to anything the EU says on this.

The thing is that the justifications are almost always bogus and protectionism is the true motivation.  Various court actions were halted and the EU launched a consultation on the issue.  Ultimately all that came out of that was some drivel from the EU parliament about eg banning betting on red cards.

Anyway getting back to the OP, as the uk is legislating to bring all uk gambling under the control of the gambling commission (with associated taxes), I would think that .fr will probably not be an option.

Before someone loses the plot he means taxes for the gambling companies not you lot

Yeah coz I'm sure those lovely people at Pokerstars and elsewhere will take the hit instead of funnelling it down to the players 

I guess PokerStars might due to its effective monopoly. Will be interesting to see how it works out in poker. In sports betting I don't expect any of the costs to be passed on.