Seven Top Poker Players File Antitrust Lawsuit Against The World Poker Tour
Players Sue to Enjoin WPTE’s Illegal Business Practices and Seek Damages for WPTE’s Wrongful Conduct
Las Vegas, July 19, 2006 -- Today, seven of the world’s top poker players filed an antitrust Complaint against WPT Enterprises, Inc. (“WPTE”) in federal district court in Los Angeles. By this lawsuit, Plaintiffs Chris Ferguson, Andrew Bloch, Annie Duke, Phil Gordon, Joseph Hachem, Howard Lederer, and Greg Raymer seek to enjoin – and seek treble and punitive damages for – WPTE’s continuing violations of federal and state antitrust laws.
WPTE operates the World Poker Tour (“WPT”), a series of televised, high stakes poker tournaments that are run by various casinos located throughout the United States and in parts of Canada and Europe.
The Complaint alleges that WPTE and the casinos have unlawfully conspired to eliminate competition for the services and intellectual property rights of top, high stakes professional poker players. In particular, the Complaint alleges that the casinos have agreed with WPTE that they will not host any non-WPT televised poker tournaments. The Complaint also alleges that WPTE and the casinos have conspired to fix the price and other terms and conditions under which Plaintiffs and other professional poker players are forced to give up their valuable services and intellectual property rights in order to participate in WPT tournaments.
Plaintiff Chris Ferguson stated as follows: “WPTE has stacked the deck against all poker players who wish to compete in its tournaments. They are using our names and images to sell their products without our prior consent and without any compensation. We cannot let these wrongful actions stand. We will prosecute this lawsuit for as long as it takes to change WPTE’s unlawful ways.”
Plaintiff Annie Duke stated that: “We are bringing this action to change the way WPTE treats players. Our goal is not just to win for ourselves, but to set a precedent so that all players can be dealt a fair hand.”
Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Dewey Ballantine LLP, whose lead counsel, Jeffrey Kessler, has successfully represented NFL, NBA, and other players in similar antitrust suits. Mr. Kessler stated the following: “It is now well established that the antitrust laws protect professional athletes and other players when agreements are entered into that restrain competition for their services. This is as true for the business of professional poker tournaments as it is for professional football, basketball, and other sports. Professional poker players are entitled to a free market for their services, which will also benefit consumers since the result will be more and higher quality poker tournaments.”
Plaintiff Greg Raymer stated that: “Our success in this lawsuit will benefit all current and future poker players. I am proud to be part of it.”
Plaintiffs are seven of the most widely recognized and successful professional poker players in the world. Plaintiffs Howard Lederer and Phil Gordon, for example, are two poker superstars who have won three WPT tournaments between them. Plaintiff Chris Ferguson, perhaps the most widely recognized poker player in the world, and Plaintiffs Joseph Hachem and Greg Raymer, have each won the World Series of Poker (“WSOP”) Main Event. Plaintiff Annie Duke has also won a WSOP event, and is regarded as the best and most accomplished female professional poker player in the history of poker. Plaintiff Andrew Bloch has two WPT “Final Table” appearances.
I decided it was in my interest as a lawyer and a poker player to attend today's conference call rgearding the suit, which was publicly noticed on numerous websites. I did not identify myself or ask any questions because I did not want to step on the toes of any of the full media members present.
This is a very interesting development I am still mulling over, and may create some serious waves in the poker community.
I do not take issue with the filing of a suit against WPTE over their craptastic releases.
I have two issues right now, and once I read the complaint one may be less pressing.
First, I think any good lawyer should better prepare his clients for a national press conference. Annie Duke sounded like a moron, and bitched about blind structures and TV production values in the context of a major piece of civil litigation. It was stupid and Kessler should never have let her talk.
Second, I practice a bit of antitrust law (less now than previously, but still a significant portion of what I do), and the idea of an antitrust suit does not sit well with me intellectually. Antitrust suits generally center around anticompetitive actions taken in a defined relevant market. At this point, I don't see how the relevant market does not include the WSOP and other televised events, where most of these players have enjoyed enormous success. I don't see how the WPTE's actions, unfair as they are, can be anticompetitive in a relevant market given the wealth of other opportunities.
For example, Andy's recent finish in the HORSE event and everyone else's relatively unfettered success makes it unclear how they are being deprived of the ability to pursue their profession. Certainly they can or can't play WPT events, but there seems to be other avenues a plenty -- many of us complain about there being too much poker on TV, right?
Again, this seems more of an employment/contract issue to me, and it sucks and the WPT should be made to stop. However, under my current thought process, I can't conceive of it as an antitrust case. Admittedly I have not gotten my hands on the complaint yet and certainly the folks at Dewey Ballantine have been doing antitrust far longer than I have.
EDIT:
OK, I have now read the Complaint. First and foremost, they do have interference with contract and other contract-based claims in there, so that alleviates my concern that they weren't focusing on the contract issues. Nice hand folks.
Second, I have pored through the antitrust side, and they define the market in a way that I had not initially considered -- "elite professional poker players". If that definition could hold, I think they could make some headway with this. They also sued WPTE only, although they do refer to the member casinos as "Conspiring Casinos" throughout.
Given the fact that anyone can plunk down $10K and play, I wonder if that definition can hold up. I think a court may be swayed by an antitrust lawyer (and I know who I would hire if I was WPTE, but they may have someone else in mind) for the defense that the proper market is "participants in televised tournaments," which would restrict the antitrust claims considerably. However, I think the release issues still win the day here.
No comments:
Post a Comment