The "Black Friday" that destroyed the US market for online poker was not about legality of online poker, it was about an interpretation of the UIEGA by a US DA in New York. Because of the way the sites handled payment processing they were indicted. The Justice Department later stated that the Wire Act doesn't apply to online poker and that implementation of online poker is up to the states.
The UIEGA was a bill attached to a "must pass" ports bill. It was vaguely written (perhaps by design) and did nothing to clarify the legality of poker. I wonder if the lumping of poker (a largely skill based game) with other forms of games of chance was done out of ignorance. I know that before I looked into poker I thought of it as gambling because it was a game where you won or lost money. I've changed my view to hold that gambling = game of chance involving money. Poker is kind of it's own category as long as it's fairly implemented.
I fully understand that it'd be easy to write a house advantaged poker game (think video poker) and/or allow others to see everyones cards (as has happened in the past). I also think that reputable companies would find it to their advantage long term to maintain the integrity of the games they provide.
I hope this is a good move to get Stars / FT back into the US, but it makes me a little wary that a publicly traded company now owns the brand and has to answer to stakeholders / shareholders / profit margins etc.
At these prices, I lose money -- but I make it up in volume. -- Peter G. Alaquon