They argue that the introduction of internet and telecommunication development will be an issue for concern regarding more problematic gambling. They view that nations acknowledge the potential dangers of internet gambling, but they fail to understand the dynamics of such dangers (Parke and Griffiths 2004 p. 298). The congress has passed laws prohibiting internet gambling but a study have shown that US citizens represent between 50% to 70% gambling customers worldwide thus making the enforcement of blanket internet gambling prohibition more difficult .
Griffith stipulates that the introduction of the Wire Act, which prohibits any gambling business to accept any bet, has also failed in its own way. Although there have been prosecutions under the act, it has presented discrepancies over its application. The phrasing of the law has seen different interpretation among courts while others perceive that it only applies to interactive wagering. This provides loopholes in the Wire Act thus preventing the prohibition of internet gambling.
The use of electronic cash has also proved to be a major hindrance in the prohibition of internet gambling. During transactions, various codes are used to identify internet-gambling activity. The codes cannot be used to differentiate between legal and illegal internet gambling activities, as they do not provide enough information.
The recent technological migration and advancement have proven to be a major hindrance in the internet gambling prohibition. The innovation and generation of new gadgets which are more lenient on providing discrepancies in control of internet gambling have rendered its prohibition more to fail than succeed. The enacted laws have also proven not efficient since they are open to discussion and are interpreted in more ways that are different by various institutions. The nature of gambling businesses to hide their information is also a major hindrance in internet gambling prohibition.