The legal woes keep piling up for Full Tilt Poker, as the site now has a third lawsuit on its hands to go along with pending legal action from former pro Clonie Gowen and former employee Jason "JDN" Newitt.  Unlike the previous two cases, this suit comes from a customer rather than someone with inside knowledge of how the company works.

Heads-up online poker player Lary "pokergirl z" Kennedy and former Full Tilt customer Greg Omotoy filed their complaint on October 1st and levied accusations of fraud, libel, slander, false advertising, and racketeering against the popular online poker room.

Kennedy and Omotoy sought legal action after Full Tilt Poker confiscated more than $80,000 spread across the two players' accounts because the site believed they were using bots, which is against its Terms of Service.  Shortly after her account was frozen in 2007, Kennedy posted her story on the popular TwoPlusTwo online poker forum seeking advice.  As the thread developed, news broke that Kennedy was multi-accounting, logging into Full Tilt on Omotoy's account in an attempt to elicit more action at the heads-up tables.

The official complaint against Full Tilt alleges that a player known on the site as “TheComplainer” accused Kennedy of being a bot and suggests that his good standing with Full Tilt resulted in her being booted off the site.  TheComplainer, known among the TwoPlusTwo community as "Crazy Mike" and "Gatorade," had a reputation as an anti-bot poker crusader and accused several other players of being bots as well.

In addition to seeking restitution and damages in relation to the confiscated funds, the lawsuit accuses the site of a number of other crimes and makes insinuations about the inner workings of its management team.  The suit is filed against the companies Full Tilt Poker and Tiltware as well as several individual members of Team Full Tilt.  The list of individuals named in the claim includes Howard Lederer, Raymond Bitar, Phil Gordon, Chris Ferguson, Andy Bloch, Perry Friedman, Erick Lindgren, Erik Seidel, Phil Ivey, Patrik Antonius, John Juanda, Gus Hansen, Mike "The Mouth" Matusow, and Allen Cunningham.

Within the claim, Kennedy and Otomy's representation explains that Full Tilt originally consisted of two separate companies, Tiltware and Vert Enterprises.  It suggests that, despite Full Tilt's assertion that they are separate entities operating out of California and St. Kitts and Nevis, respectively, the two companies are one in the same and even suggests that Vert Enterprises actually ran an office out of Los Angeles for over two years.  When describing the roles of the individuals named in the suit, the claim also argues that Bitar, Lederer, and Ferguson all play major executive positions in the company.

The suit accuses Ferguson and Bloch of creating bots to populate slow cash game tables on the site and increase the profits of the company.  The bot accusation and the contention that Team Full Tilt and Full Tilt Red Pros are playing with "house money" are used in the claim to depict Full Tilt as an online casino rather than cardroom and, as such, in violation of California state law as well as online gaming laws in several other states.

These illegal online gambling charges are joined by accusations of fraud, unfair competition, and false advertising.  The complaint also invokes the Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), which has historically been used to levy criminal charges against organized crime syndicates, but is used in private suits as well in part because it enables plaintiffs to receive triple the amount of damages.  Kennedy and Otomy's claim suggests that Full Tilt has willfully committed hundreds of illegal gambling transactions that fall under RICO’s definition of racketeering.

Full Tilt has yet to issue a response to any of the charges issued in this most recent suit or in the pending litigation involving Newitt and Gowen.  While the latter two are remaining mum about their cases against the company, Kennedy has taken her story to the Web and posting the complaint against Full Tilt on her official pokergirl website.

21 Responses to “Full Tilt Poker Sued Over Bot Use”

1. Don Says:
   October 6th, 2009 at 5:38 am

   That explain why they don’t use anti-bot solution

2. moose Says:
   October 15th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

   My comment regarding the law suit against Full Tilt and the usage of BOTs.

   If Full Tilt confiscated your money for using BOTs, yes by all means sue the pants off of them. Because this is discrimination. Full Tilt uses software to develop the cards, and software to deliver the cards to the tables. Therefore why can’t I use software to play at their tables against their software. When do they get the power to dictate only they can uses their crooked software.

   Sue them they are crooked anyway.

3. jayt Says:
   October 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

   Dear Moose,
   You would not be playing “against their software”. you would be playing bots against other players. And as a player, I would not play at a site that knowingly allowed this. Its like playing a live game against someone sitting there with hand analysis software.

   To call that discrimination is like calling it discrimination if a boxing commissioner fined you for letting a boxer put horseshoes in his gloves.

4. tc2 Says:
   November 5th, 2009 at 6:49 pm

   u must be craZY TO RISK REAL MONEY

5. JOHNC Says:
   November 10th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

   I used to play on this site and I think it should be banned and all profits given back to players who lost money. It is amost impossible to believe that they are playing a legit game on these
   sites with all of the bad beats that happen during a game. I play in person a lot and don’t see as many bad beats in a 6-8 session as I would see in a 9 player tourney that lasted only
   45 minutes. Just crazy, what looked like the very worst play possible would get rewarded for being stupid, no skill just plain stupid move, unless you had inside knowledge of the next cards of course. then it would be easy to play and steal from people without the same insiders knowledge. This site smells like, looks like it, so please don’t taste it because I’m sure it’s gonna taste just like it.

6. mike Says:
   November 19th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

   obviously bots should be illegal since the purpose of poker is to test your skills against others. the site itself actually would make more money if there were bots all over the place since they play far more hands than any human, HOWEVER, I agree with jayt, customer satisfaction clearly comes first and I would never play on a site that allowed use of bots. Furthermore moose, the Full tilt software is designed to allow the best quality of game for their players, keep our money safe and enforce the rules where they can. For the record, I have played real money games on FTP for over a year and I still have no complaints. Good luck at the tables everyone!

7. Brian G. Says:
   November 23rd, 2009 at 12:15 am

   Anyone who plays online is an idiot. JohnC above is not kidding about seeing more bad beats in an hour online than you see live in many hours. If you’ll notice, and I am sure you have, it seems too perfect that on the turn you hit a hand that you can in no way fold and on the river comes the only card in the deck that could have beat you.

   Besides, I want to see what the guy or girl taking my money looks like, so I can tell them of when they stayed in with 10-3 offsuit and call and all-in with nothing on the flop to only go runner-runner to beat me. (This, of course, never happens live, but it might someday)

8. Justin D Says:
   November 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 pm

   U guy’s aren’t the sharpest tools in the box! Online poker seems rigged to u because u play way more hands online then u do in a live setting. In a hour session u might see almost double the amount of hands then at a brick and mortar game! Calm down take a deep breathe and quit playing junk that can be rivered constantly!

9. Phil Woods Says:
   December 14th, 2009 at 2:51 am

   Justin you are obviously a stooge for Full Tilt. How many times do you see 2 players with a full house each competing for the “all-in” prize only to see that the player with the higher trips take the booty and wipes the other player out of the game. If it was a one-off I would accept that it was “chance”. It is not chance and anyone who plays full tilt seriously thinking they can win over the medium term is dreaming. Play only for fun because 98% of players donate to the FT Coffers, just like a casino take.

   The big games with the Ivey’s, Ledera’s and Antonius etc are with “play money”!! They are NOT real!!!!

10. Phil Woods Says:
    December 14th, 2009 at 2:53 am

    I think you are correct!!

11. Bill Says:
    December 14th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

    I’ve been playing poker online at various sites (Bodog, Pacific Poker, Poker Room, Everest, UB, Full Tilt, Stars, etc. etc.) for nearly six years and have been a small, but consistent, winner in cash games, SNGs, and tournaments.

    It takes time to learn the game and become a winner (or even to become a break-even player). Part of being a winner is understanding that you can get your money in good and that sometimes you WILL lose to horrendous beats, and sometimes these things will happen A LOT in a short period of time (this is called “variance”). I know it sucks when you are two-outered in a cash game or deep in a tourney, but that’s poker. It happens to everyone, even the best in the world. The difference between the winners and the whiners is that the winners know how to handle loss and overcome tilt.

    You guys that think “they had to know what cards were coming” aren’t thinking about what is the most likely situation: your opponent is just terrible! Isn’t that what you want when you play poker? When terrible beats happen to you, just know that you put your chips in with the best hand and be content in knowing you made the best play you could. There’s nothing more you can do other than keep playing or quitting altogether.

    Also, many of you conspiracy theorists fail to remember the times when YOU sucked out on someone and issued a bad beat. It has to do with selective memory. I’ve probably hit 10-15 royal and straight flushes and 50+ quads in my time online and sometimes even won big with them, but do I specifically remember those hands? No. But I can tell you the suits of every card on the board when my full house got cracked by a two-outer on the river three years ago for a chunk of change (actual hand, and it was a LIVE game, not online!).

    I used to be a online-poker-is-rigged theorist a few years ago when I was a young buck, but later realized how absurd it would be for a highly successful online poker room to scam their customers. As soon as news is confirmed about any cheating they would lose almost all their business immediately.

    It’s hard to fathom “the long run” in poker, but once you gain more experience and try to wrap your head around the factor of variance, it helps soften the blow of bad beats. Just suck it up, study the game, play as many hands as you can for experience, and TRY TO BE LESS RESULTS-ORIENTED! I can’t stress that last line enough.

12. Jydemand Says:
    January 28th, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Bill +1

13. Bargeguy Says:
    February 20th, 2010 at 9:19 am

    I agree with Bill. The successful sites are absolutely printing money-60 and now 90 hands an hour for Rush Poker. The rake they are getting with 100,000 players on line has to be in the millions or maybe 10’s of millions every month.

    They would be totally nuts not to run a clean game if for no other reason than their own self peservation. Look at what happened to Ultimate Bet- they got crippled by the scandal. Do you think Full Tilt or Poker Stars have any reason to scam us players out of a few thousand here and there when they’ve got such a fabulous franchise?

    It sure would be interesting to get a look at their numbers, that’s why some of these lawsuits will be so closely followed-they may be forced to show the numbers. I’d bet that will be a real eye opener if they do.

14. QuePasaNonGrata Says:
    February 24th, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    I might suggest that given the uncertainties of truly favorable online poker legislation in the US, how can you be sure that the short sightedness of the respective businesses don’t play more of a factor? Using the analogy of a traditional american vs. japanese business practice, often times americans do not look at the long term value in business. By comparison, the japanese business model looks 5+ years ahead. Wouldn’t you invest in a company given inside info, especially if you were isolated from potential losses, knowing that the company could crash & burn in a short term? Perhaps others could offer additional insight.

    This is not the only pertinent analogy, nor do I think that variance is the only explanation. I have had enough bad beats live, and yes, I have played over 120K hands online in the past year, but I do see some of the ugliest scenario’s I’ve ever seen in my 4 years of play. I have myself cashed in many online MTTs & Sit n Gos for over 8k, but have also lost an almost equal amount to (1) the donkey plays of others, (2) SICK bad beats, and definitely (3) to my own poor playing skills on occasion given the criteria for online play. You live in a bubble if you believe there is no reason for a legitimate “cash cow” of a business to manipulate the situation by (1) increasing rake from juicing the cards or by (2) paying off noobies to get them hooked (we are talking about addictive behaviors here after all). Watch the news since the inception of TV? Any human foibles you’ve noticed in recent history? Enron? Bernard Madoff? We’re talking human nature above all else. Just as players are likely to try to manipulate the system, aren’t the owners likely to get a little extra where they can if the fall out can be controlled or minimized? Wag the Dog? That little extra can translate into tremendous +EV. Greed & the desire for power are strong motivators.

    Another issue is the encryption & potential for software favoring the organization. Even current levels of encryption are beatable from what I’ve read. When the encryption could potentially be increased, would that not benefit everyone? Also, the supposed 3rd party expert sign off on the PStars algorithms by BMM Int. & Cigital? (an aside: I have noticed PStars efforts in the legitimacy battle go up considerably in the past year. Legit or not? Who knows.)

    As for the suggestion that it would be too involved or inherently flawed to implement code that would create or change certain criteria in a card game that could ultimately benefit the overseer, I find this naive given the sophistication of our modern software & hardware. More oversight/regulation is a must I would think. This is all supposition of course, I am no expert mind you, and the potential additional computer resources associated w/ the additional encryption might be an issue for all I know, but given our incredible availability of information and our great thinkers out there, why so little discussion/moderation of empirical data between the “variance” nay sayers & the “conspiracy” hounds?

    Now I realize that due to the popularity and visibility of poker/online poker, there is much face to save. I know Absolute & UB both took a big hit, but haven’t they made somewhat of a comeback? Hired a high profile liaison/online poker pro for damage control?

    I think a dialogue above all else is important. Just as we live in a supposedly “free” society (speaking as a US citizen) we also need to participate in our government for it to truly work. Something that is sadly missing more often than not in many venues. Having said that, our poker rooms are far better off for having pundits & conspiracy theorists abound. Open discussion/speculation is good.

    Please share your thoughts. Debate is good. Ignorance breeds lies.

15. QuePasaNonGrata Says:
    February 24th, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    BTW Bill. Your point of selective memory is spot on. A similar pertinent thought: David Sklansky put it best when he said that a player who just lost a bunch of money but is up on the week/month often feels worse than someone who is behind but just won a fair amount. In retrospect, just wish when I had got it in good that I didn’t have as much invested in the pot, comparatively speaking, as when I sucked out. I’d like to see your stats/hear your thoughts on that.

    BTW, I do have a fledgling Blog dedicated to starting out w/ a small bankroll called “Discipline + $50″ if anyone is interested. There are other links to some exceptional sites & blogs posted as well (including Ansky’s site).

16. ps0054 Says:
    February 25th, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    I personally do not believe that online poker is rigged — I believe — in fact, I know — I’ve done better online than live. That said, I would like to see a “bad beat comparison” in terms of percentage of hands where bad beats occurred online compared to the same calculation for live games. Obviously a definition of a bad beat must be set (perhaps 80% or better to win after the turn, or something like that) — I think that would put to rest any accusations of online poker being rigged (or not, I suppose, if the percentages are a lot higher for online).

    The poker site gets paid the same money no matter who wins — the rake is the rake is the rake. Other than possibly “cold-decking” every hand to ensure maximum rake per hand, I can’t really see any benefit to rigging the game.

    QuePasaNonGrata, I believe, said that greed would motivate the sites to rig their games. I believe greed works just the opposite — that’s what keeps the sites honest — a truly greedy man would never kill the goose that laid the golden egg — poker players are the geese and the rake is the golden egg. For a poker site to risk losing its player base for a small extra percentage points profit would be sheer lunacy!

17. QuePasaNonGrata Says:
    February 27th, 2010 at 12:09 am

    ps0054 – A correct assumption & summation w/ respect to greed, all things being equal. I was merely writing in a stream of consciousness & also attempting to promote a dialogue/debate, not support one outlook. My main curiosity has to do with the effect of the US legal stance w/ online poker. Pardon if this was not a more cohesive “devil’s advocate” effort. Your quality response is what I was hoping to see. As for live vs. online play, I’ve always been good at the visual/psychology of poker as far as picking out the player types, etc. Otherwise, I am fortunate to have a rather good physical presence at a table as well and have consistently done well in that venue.

18. jlap Says:
    March 5th, 2010 at 12:31 am

    regarding online poker remember you are playing against a software program its fun but dont give up your day job
    if your lucky you can win but as in all software chips if you hit the right combination you win if you get the right
    cards in poker you can win In slots if the chip gives the right combination you win But remember Casinos DO NOT
    LOSE MONEY The skill in poker is simple 1) know when to fold 2) know when to raise the rest is luck you
    cant win against A – A with 7 – 3 unless you bluff or get lucky on the draw if the pro’s were so skilled would they
    not be in the last 3 of the world series of poker each year instead of playing in tounaments (and getting paid) or
    writing books on how to win, or doing commentary on poker shows Play poker for fun, like roulette you may hit
    the right number have fun but dont blow the mortgage

19. DGS Says:
    March 8th, 2010 at 4:38 am

    LOL, all you guys that complain about online poker being rigged are funny. I quit my career 2 years ago now to play online poker full time, i win consistently always have always will because there are sooooo many idiot fish online only to willing to steam and give you their chips / cash. The bottom line here is becoming a winning poker player takes a hell of a lot of time, patience, discipline and motivation. So if your losing playing online stop and consider for a second that maybe you are just a plain bad player.. there are alot of consistent winners online so what are they all just lucky? LOL donkaments

20. play4rent Says:
    March 12th, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    I agree with the naysayers, as opposed to the conspiracy hounds. Having studied probability and playing a *lot* of games both online and with simulators I see lots of “bad beats.” Enron, Madoff and others are the exception not the rule. Don’t ever forget it. There is too much at risk by FT greats like Jesus Ferguson writing a silly little bot to increase volume.

    There will also always be UB’s but they won’t be first or second.

    However, while FT and PS do not have enough incentive to run bots, they have plenty of incentive to look the other way and not do everything they can to prevent bots from running on their sites. To me, that is the real issue. Check out some bot sites and read about how PS and FT allow their code to be “botted” by allowing too much info to be available to a skilled programmer. Info like field names/column names in their databases, etc. That is the real story.

21. pokerhater Says:
    March 14th, 2010 at 7:16 am

    poker sites such as full tilt manipulates the cards dealt to get maximum action. This speeds up game play, and more games = more rake = more money.

    Ever notice how big stacks win the the worst hands when games go on too long.

Add a Comment