California's Native American tribes against online poker

Poker Stars, one of the most popular online gaming operators in the world, has had to confront the most powerful casino's owners in California, the Native American tribes. Poker Starts received very bad reviews from the Native American tribes from California who own several land-based casinos in the state. The California Tribal Business Alliance plus a 12 tribes' coalition, contacted the state legislator to stop the licensing process for any future operator, in particular, Poker Stars, Full Tilt and Absolute Poker, as per their implication of the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA). These tribes are just against an online gaming regulation as many other coalitions and groups are trying to do the same in Nevada, an effort to stop the development of the gambling industry.

The online poker operator, Poker Stars, has not wasted any time to write a statement to fight back these coalitions, groups that are looking forward to creating a monopoly out of the gambling market, like many gaming moguls from Nevada, like Sheldon Adelson and his new coalition against online gambling. The online poker operator has already tried to gain entry in the United States with several movements like the unsuccessful acquisition of Resorts Casino's Atlantic Casino Club in New Jersey. The statement said: "Poker Stars has not, will not and need not request any changed to the California gaming regulations. Most regulatory frameworks around the world leave the assessment of suitability to qualified expert regulators. The California Gambling Control Commission has a 15-year history of successful consumer protection and is more than qualified to continue to determine suitability. Poker Stars looks forward to demonstrating our suitability to the regulator just like any other company seeking to operate in California and investing in a fair and well-regulated market. These groups are misrepresenting the UIGEA and Poker Stars' past US operations serving only to exclude Poker Stars from the market in order to avoid what should be fair competition. Their efforts are not in the best interest of consumer choice or consumer protection."