Home	Tutorial	Online Casino Reviews	Best Online Casinos	Casino Software	Casino News

Online Casino Gambling --- Casino News

A Question of Entitlement

The PokerStars controversy and court case is ongoing after a judge adjourned the case because of the contractual issues. The whole case comes down the fact that one of the two winners of the PokerStars World Championship of Online Poker No Limits Hold'em Main Event allowed another online casino poker player to use her account – and the individual won more than a million in winnings. This similar issue has cropped up with other online casino poker sites – they contract certain poker professionals to gamble on the site but the pros then allow others to use their registered username. While normally the gambler would get a slap on the wrist for such behavior the PokerStars case has gone to the High Courts because of the high sum of money under debate.

PokerStars is the largest international online casino gambling group in the world – the site hosts huge tournaments and large prize pools. In the current dispute, internet poker player Natalie Telscher has taken PokerStars to the High Courts in the Isle of Man for non-payment of poker winnings. Telscher allowed another poker gambler to enter the WCOOP event under her user-name, and when that table when all the way to the final table of the main event, and chose a split prize agreement, the top two poker players each were to walk with $1.228 million in winnings.

The PokerStars online casino gambling group on the other hand contends that Telscher breached her contract and tournament rules when she allowed another player to gamble under her username, “the Void.” Based on the breached of contract and tournament entry rules, PokerStars has refused to payout her winnings. The case ended with an adjournment and the President of the High Court, David Doyle, observed that it really should be a clear-cut answer – who is entitled? “Either the plaintiff is contractually entitled to the monies or she is not. Either the defendant was entitled to disqualify the plaintiff or it was not,” Doyle noted in his judgment.