 |
| Internet Cafe elsewhere in the Valley (Spfld Intruder) |
The Internet Cafe phenomenon in Springfield (and the region) continues to intrigue and test the limits of state and local law. The trouble started when Attorney General Martha Coakley ordered Internet Cafes that were alleged to engage in Internet Gambling to shut down, including the 777 Cyber Center cafe at Five Town Plaza on Cooley Street in Springfield. To not go through all of the history behind the Internet, we refer you to an excellent round-up by the Springfield Intruder.
However, the entire situation continues to be full of questions. As Bill Dusty aptly puts it, running an Internet Cafe "means big money for those who operate them." It has required some advertising acrobatics and the term "sweepstakes" to survive as long as the facilities have. However, Attorney General Martha Coakley, using her authority under M.G.L. 93A §2a, issued emergency regulations in April that prohibited these "Internet Cafes." During this period, the cafe on Cooley Street, nonetheless continued to operate. According to a press release from the Attorney General, a Springfield Cyber Cafe (probably 777) failed to convince a judge to halt the Attorney General's regulation in May.
Last week, however, the Attorney General Martha Coakley issued permanent regulations (CMR 30.00) that mirrored the earlier emergency regulations. Those regulations went into effect last Friday. However, as of today, Cyber Center 777 appears open for business. Additionally, the special permit decision of the City Council notes that only five of the facility's 30 units can operate without a permit. Whether this continues to be case given that the facility does not have a permit (we'll get to that in a minute), is not known at this time.
 |
| A.G. Martha Coakley (Wikipedia) |
Based on the Attorney General's regulations, it would appear that most of these facilities are not legal or no longer are. The regulations use a weighing test based on whether the legitimate good/service (in this case Internet access) is clearly being outweighed by the sweepstakes chance. The regulations also target sweepstakes in such a way to not allow the use of that term alone as a fig leaf for any gambling/game of chance establishment. There is also consideration of whether those who pay get more of an advantage over those who do not. Other factors include how the instructions explain the good/service over the sweepstakes/lottery/gaming and how the facility is marketed and/or decorated.
Why is the facility still open? A guess may be that its owners continue to believe they are acting legally. In their special permit application, 777 Cyber Center's attorney (itself a bone of contention) submitted a copy of the case Commonwealth v. Webb, a Massachusetts Appeals Court case (upheld by the Supreme Judicial Court) as evidence of the facility's legality. However, despite city documents that do not find much of a difference between 777 and Webb, they are, in fact different.
Posts
