PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 29, 1998
Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1998 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit, and set penalties for, knowingly using the Internet or any other interactive computer service to: (1) place, receive, or otherwise make a bet or wager with any person; or (2) intentionally send, receive, or invite information assisting in the placing of a bet or wager. Prohibits, and sets penalties for, knowing use by a person engaged in a gambling business of the Internet or any other interactive computer service to: (1) place, receive, or otherwise make a bet or wager; or (2) send, receive, or invite information assisting in the placing of a bet or wager. Authorizes the court, upon conviction of a person and as an additional penalty, to enter a permanent injunction enjoining the transmission of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of a bet or wager. Lists exceptions, including certain State lottery, racing, or parimutuel activity and certain lawful bets or wagers that are made on Indian lands or conducted in accordance with an applicable Tribal-State compact. (Sec. 4) Grants the U.S. district courts original and exclusive jurisdiction to prevent and restrain Internet gambling violations by issuing appropriate orders. Authorizes the U.S. Attorney General and State Attorneys General to institute proceedings under this section. Sets forth provisions regarding orders and injunctions against Internet service providers, including scope of relief, considerations in the exercise of equitable discretion, findings, expiration of injunctions, expedited proceedings, privacy protection, and continuous court jurisdiction. (Sec. 5) Requires a report to the Congress by: (1) the Attorney General regarding enforcing Internet gambling provisions and regarding the amount of money being used for Internet gambling; and (2) the Secretary of Commerce regarding methods for filtering and screening transmissions in violation of this Act originating outside of a State or the United States, the effect of injunctions imposed pursuant to this Act on interactive computer services and the Internet, and the economic and societal costs of illegal Internet gambling.
People & committees
Rep. Stearns, Cliff [R-FL-6] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4350 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4350 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4350 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4350 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.