In a recent comment Carey Poehlmann mentioned the lawsuit of seven poker professionals against the World Poker Tour as being analogous to a possible case against the IFOCE. The World Poker Tour’s wikipedia page describes the suit:

On July 19, 2006, seven poker professionals sued WPTE, alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the California Cartwright Act, and intentional interference with contract (Complaint and Response). The professionals (Chris Ferguson, Andy Bloch, Annie Duke, Joe Hachem, Phil Gordon, Howard Lederer, and Greg Raymer) allege that WPTE’s standard release forms, required for participation in WPTE events, are anti-competitive and designed to interfere with their contractual obligations to other companies. The anti-competition claim is based on the fact that WPTE’s contracts with the casinos that host its tournaments bar those casinos (and other casinos owned by the same parent companies) from hosting non-WPTE poker events. The claim of interference with contract is based on the releases’ claim to perpetual rights to the players’ likenesses for any use WPTE wishes. The players claim that this would put them in violation of other contracts (such as Ferguson’s Activision Games contract or several players’ contracts with online poker sites).

The suing poker players have set up a web site at http://wptlawsuit.com/ The last action in the case was a request for summary judgement made in March.

Unlike the IFOCE, the World Poker Tour does not limit its members solely to its own events; they are allowed to do non-WPT tournaments such as the World Series of Poker.

PermalinkComments