Signed into English law in 1710, the Statute of Queen Anne was aimed at gambling debts and contained 15 sections. Certain aspects of the law have held up to this day in both British and U.S. law.
One of the principles of the law, treble damages, was used recently as an Illinois man tried to sue MasterCard International for debts his friend had gained through gambling activities on the Internet. After his friend, Glenn Lee, went six months without attempting to collect his debts, Thomas Reuter sought to use the Statute of Anne to collect damages for Lee.
The suit marked the first time the Statute of Anne had been used to attempt recouping gambling debts incurred on the Internet. It was thrown out by the 4th Circuit Court in Christian County, Ill., however, one might speculate that the attempt could open up the door for similar cases.
We asked Prof. Joseph Kelly of State University of New York-Buffalo:
What are the implications of this case, if any, for the I-gaming industry?
 |
Joseph Kelly:
"Martians may have difficulty understanding..."
|
|
Joseph Kelly: In law, the only important cases are reported decisions. This is nothing but a trial court decision of minimum value as far as precedent goes. But still it is interesting. Martians may have difficulty understanding how--if there is no fraud in a gambling matter and the loser doesn't object--someone can come out of nowhere and say "I am suing for treble damages." This all dates back to the Statute of Anne.
The English still have parts of the statute on the books, but they have eliminated this stuff about treble damages. With treble damages, if I lose $20,000, you can sue to get the $20,000 back plus another $60,000 (three times the amount of original loss). In England, pursuant to other laws, if you lose in gambling, you can't sue to get your money back. But nobody can sue to enforce that debt as well if it is an illegal gambling debt.
The Statute of Anne was incorporated into law in Illinois, South Carolina and maybe a dozen other states. Under those laws, the loser can use it to get his money. But if he or she doesn't, someone else can and get treble damages.
The court denied relief to this guy because you can only sue a winner and he went after the credit card company, which wasn't the winner. The court also said if you allow the credit card company to be sued, then not only could the losers sue them, but also the offshore casino themselves. It does open the door to some weird possibilities.
Since the guy lost, I don't see this case opening up a new avenue of legislation or court cases similar to this.
As wacky as this sounds, gaming debts were unenforceable in Nevada until 1983 because of common law. That was based on the Statute of Anne. They didn't follow the statute itself; it was just precedent. Anytime you would ask someone, "Why are we following the law of this lady who lived in the early 1700s?" no one could give you a straight answer other than, "This is the way we have always done it."
Joseph M. Kelly PhD, JD is a professor at State College of New York at Buffalo.