Update: The hearing has been delayed.

Two bills that could affect online poker legislation in the United States are up for discussion in the House Committee on Financial Services this week. It was announced over the weekend that HR 2266 and HR 2267 are to be presented on Friday in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington DC at 10 pm. Both bills would have a dramatic affect on US accepted online casinos and poker rooms found offshore.

The Congressional committee will essentially examine the two pro-poker regulation bills in question.

As a recap, the two bills introduced by Chairman Barney Frank, are as follows:

HR 2266: The Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act will delay the implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) which is set to kick in on June 1, 2010.

HR 2267: The Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act of 2009 will call for the regulation and legalization of online gambling and poker, and will nullify the controversial UIGEA.

While everyone in the industry is hopeful that HR 2267 will be adopted, putting an end to the UIGEA once and for all, it would still be seen as a victory if HR 2266 temporarily delays the implementation of the act in June. At the beginning of the year, pressure by the online poker and gambling industry drove Congress to delay the act’s implementation for a six month period.

The Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative welcomed the news that the two bills would be discussed by the House Committee on Financial Services this coming Friday. The group’s spokesperson, Michael Waxman said in a statement: “This hearing will provide further evidence that UIGEA is a poorly-crafted law that simply does not work. A more common sense approach to protect Americans is required. We expect this hearing to provide further impetus for the House Financial Services Committee and Congress to address this issue and move forward Chairman Frank’s regulatory bill.”

Marcus Bebb-Jones, who was accused by the US authorities for killing his wife Sabrina in 1997, will be extradited to the United States, a UK High Court has ruled. The judge ruled that extraditing the former poker champion to the United States will not breach his human rights.

The British courts were due to decide on Bebb-Jones’ future last month, but the decision was held up after his lawyer, Ben Cooper, sought assurance from the US authorities that if he faced trial in the United States, he would not get the death penalty. He was told by the US authorities that they would not be seeking the maximum punishment.

“If the defendant is found guilty of murder in the first degree, which is the charge he faces, the maximum penalty would be a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole,” said the ruling judge Howard Riddle at the City of Westminster Magistrate’s Court in London. “The defense argues that a whole life sentence which, in real terms, is irreducible violates a prisoner’s rights.”

“I accept the possibility that some people would consider such a sentence to be grossly disproportionate,” he said. “However, it is not obviously or clearly grossly disproportionate. On these facts the prospect of a whole life term falls short of inhuman and degrading treatment.”

Marcus Bebb-Jones lived with his wife and infant son in Colorado in the 1990’s. He is believed to have murdered his wife and buried her body in a national park in Colorado. He then went on a weekend of frenzied gambling, drinking and sex using his wife’s credit cards in Vegas, before trying to commit suicide.

After that failed attempt, he fled with his son to England and took up professional poker. Bebb-Jones was well known on the live poker circuit and came in the money in several tournaments. He has since lost all his winnings and is living on benefits, according to the Kidderminster Shuttle.

$11,000 Fine for Affiliates and Bloggers from FTC

The FTC has released a revised guide to advertisers, bloggers and affiliates. The guide is intended to ‘help’ advertisers ensure they remain within the restrictions of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC notes that the guide is:

“…[An] administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act.”

While the law itself has not seemed to have changed in any way, the interpretation of the law obviously has since the creation of the act in 1980. Bloggers should take note of the new ‘guide’, because if the FTC finds you in violation of the FTC Act you can face a fine up to $11,000.

Bloggers and affiliates should pay close attention to the material connections portion of the revised guide, which urges bloggers who review or endorse any product or service to disclose any connection where the blogger may receive payment, free product or any other ‘material connection’ that the visitor would not expect.

Of course “material connection”, “review”, “endorsement” and “visitor would not expect” are all up for interpretation, however the safest course of action is to simply offer a disclosure of any such relationship, otherwise you may be trying to argue your interpretation in court or paying $11,000.

What is an endorsement according to the FTC?

“[A]n endorsement means any advertising message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser, even if the views expressed by that party are identical to those of the sponsoring advertiser.”

Summary of Changes:

Testimonial Advertisements: “Results Not Typical”
When offering testimonials for products or services, advertisers can no longer use the phrase “results not typical” as a safe harbor.

Bloggers: “Material Connections”
If the blogger receives any payments, free-product or any material connections that consumers would not expect, that information must be disclosed.

Celebrities: “Celebrity Endorsers”
Until now, no law clearly stated that endorsers and advertisers could be held liable for “false or unsubstantiated claims”, nor did celebrities have to disclose any relationship with advertisers.

Ironically the guide is supposed to change December 1, 2009 the same day the UIGEA begins full force.