Gordon vayo sues pokerstars for $700k scoop prize – poker news – news, views and gossip power quiz questions

In the end, Defendant not only refused to pay Mr. Vayo what it owed him, but also threatened to counter-sue Mr. Vayo for breach of its Terms of Service if Mr. Vayo did not comply with a purported “exclusive venue” provision contained in the PokerStars.com Terms of Service. This provision purports to require all users of the PokerStars.com site to bring any legal claims they might wish to assert against Defendant, including for Defendant’s violations of its own Terms of Service, on the

Isle of Man – a small island in the Irish sea between Great Britain and Ireland, which is often used as a tax haven by corporations, and which employs an archaic sui generis system of law called “Manx law.” In this way, Defendant purports to shield itself

from any practical or realistic possibility of being sued – thus allowing Defendant to violate its own Terms of Service with impunity against any PokerStars.com user that does not have the means or wherewithal to file and litigate a lawsuit on the Isle of

Man. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Isle of Man venue provision contained in Defendant’s Terms of Service is unreasonable and unconscionable and, as a result, is null and void. See Frigate Ltd. v. Damia, No. C 06-04734 CRB, 2007

55. Mr. Vayo’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant on September 27, 2017, to which Defendant’s in-house counsel responded on October 4, 2017. This October 4 letter was the first time that Defendant provided any details at all regarding its allegations against Mr. Vayo. Specifically, Defendant alleged that there were

56. Mr. Vayo’s counsel responded on October 10, pointing out that between March and July 2017 Mr. Vayo played only about 8,800 tournament hands in total, thus, any information suggesting the he played 56,000 tournament hands during this period from the United States was verifiably false. Mr. Vayo’s counsel demanded that Defendant produce the information on which it was basing its allegations.

57. On November 14, 2017, Defendant responded by letter from outside counsel, attaching a chart listing 54 alleged connections by Mr. Vayo originating from within the U.S. All but nine (9) of the alleged connections were between March 24 and May 18, 2017, with the remainder occurring in late July 2017. Notably, none of

58. Mr. Vayo’s counsel responded on December 4, 2017, pointing out the numerous deficiencies in Defendant’s list. Among other things: the alleged U.S. connections overlapped entirely with the period of the VPN malfunction in Spring 2017 that Mr. Vayo had disclosed to Defendant less than two (2) hours after they originally raised the issue of U.S. contacts. In addition, all of the ISP addresses on Defendant’s list in fact traced to Canada, not to the U.S. Further, while Defendant listed the “Wi-Fi Region” for all of the connections as “California,” without further explanation, Mr. Vayo pointed out that he did not access the site via Wi-Fi, but used a hard-lined connection to his computer. Moreover, numerous of the alleged U.S. logins for Mr. Vayo’s account occurred on the same days as logins to his account from

Canada, which Defendant did not contest, and it defies logic that Mr. Vayo was logging into his account from both Canada and the United States several times a day on successive days. This too pointed to the VPN malfunction that Mr. Vayo had previously and immediately disclosed to Defendant. Also in this correspondence, Mr. Vayo provided even further documentation regarding his activities in Canada during the relevant time period.

59. Defendant responded on January 15, 2018 – a month and a half later – not with further evidence or explanations of the deficiencies in its purported evidence, but by asserting that Mr. Vayo’s documentation of his whereabouts was insufficient

60. Defendant made this assertion despite the fact that Defendant itself did not even allege that there were any out of jurisdiction logins to Mr. Vayo’s account during the SCOOP tournament, and despite the fact that Mr. Vayo had submitted uncontroverted evidence – which Defendant did not contest – that he was in fact in Canada on the first two days of the SCOOP tournament, on May 20 and 21, and it would have been virtually impossible (not to mention inexplicable) for him to travel to the U.S. in the middle of an active, intensive, major tournament that required nearly

61. On April 7, 2018, Defendant’s counsel sent Mr. Vayo a letter stating that its investigation had concluded and that, because Mr. Vayo had failed to produce evidence sufficient to “rebut” Defendant’s suspicion that Mr. Vayo may have been in the U.S. during a portion of the SCOOP tournament, his account would remain frozen and he would not be paid.

On top of that I’d much rather Amaya didn’t give to charity with players mobey but gave it back to more victims of cillusion. If they want to donate then let it come out of rake… The source where it’s supposed to come from. As I said #revenuestream

That is a point of debate that is not really related to this topic. Despite the complaint trying to "gin up" the concept that Stars uses this approach as an income stream while oiling their mustaches, the reality is that things like this are not what Stars wants to do – it looks bad regardless of who is right or wrong.

I doubt a judge will be that impressed with the approach used in that complaint, as they see that type of eye rolling language used all the time, and it is just one side of the story. In the end it should come down to the evidence both sides produce. Call me naive, but I suspect if this person truly had lock solid evidence of his presence in Canada (which anyone in that situation should maintain) then this would never happen. Much of that complaint feels like a XXXX site stole my money thread where a lot of data is not provided initially.