Mahjong Ruling Could Be Necessary Precedent for Online Poker Regulation

As new arguments are pursued in the fight to legalize online poker, advocates are looking for existing precedents that could be used to enhance their argument. One of the fundamental concerns courts and lawmakers have is deciding whether or not online poker is a game of chance or skill. Moreover, they wonder if that distinction should have any relevance insofar as the law is concerned.

A recent decision was upheld in New York state in the case of People v. Li Ai Hua in June of 2009. In this case, the judge decided that the deponent was unable to prove that Mahjong was a game of chance rather than skill. However, the court did rule that the state could provide additional evidence to demonstrate that Mahjong was a game of chance, thereby leaving the legality of the game in limbo.

Earlier this month, New York courts heard the case of People v. Feng, where they were once again required to rule on the legality of the game. The court ruled that Mahjong was not a game of chance per se, as it required a combination of chance and skill.

In the end, the judge denied a motion to dismiss the charges against the defendants for promoting illegal gambling. However, many proponents of online gambling believe that the fact that the judge ruled that Mahjong was not a game of pure luck may have positive implications for legal online poker.

On the other hand, their attitude may be overly optimistic as well, considering that the illegal gambling charges have stuck. In the long run, there will be other issues that will need to be taken into consideration and legislators will be required to consider other factors such as providing protections against minors, taxation and the implications on the larger economy.

While the debate as to whether online poker is a game of chance or skill is but one aspect of the movement to regulate online poker, the new precedent may help the regulatory process.