Rachel:

Mark Taylor will finalize all issues relating to the EnronOnline Games in my 
absence.  Please follow up with Mark to advise re the status of Italy, Norway 
and Sweden (and any other countries that we may be able to move to the 
"Approved List.")  Also, please confirm that for the purpose of screening 
individuals who should not play the game, the appropriate question is 
"Country of Residence."

Thank you so much for all of your invaluable assistance on this project!

Leslie
----- Forwarded by Leslie Hansen/HOU/ECT on 08/28/2000 01:37 PM -----

	Leslie Hansen
	08/25/2000 11:44 AM
		
		 To: "Murton, Rachel" <rachel.murton@linklaters.com>@ENRON
		 cc: Dave Samuels/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Re: Enron game

Rachel:

I don't think we're going to be interested in reimbursing for connection 
costs so I think we should just keep France in the lists of "not approved."

With regard to the data protection issue, I have actually sent Justin an 
e-mail on this various issue to determine if our current legal & privacy 
language is sufficient or if we need additional language in the rules.  I 
will forward you that e-mail.  If you go into the Registration Screen of the 
demo game, you will see that individual participants will be required to 
enter their name, e-mail, address and telephone number.

I look forward to your comments on this issue.

Leslie





	"Murton, Rachel" <rachel.murton@linklaters.com>
	08/25/2000 10:47 AM
		 
		 To: "'leslie.hansen@enron.com'" <leslie.hansen@enron.com>
		 cc: "'justin.boyd@enron.com'" <justin.boyd@enron.com>, "Didizian, Marly" 
<marly.didizian@linklaters.com>
		 Subject: Enron game


 Dear Leslie


France
I have now read through the French advice.  The DGCCRF (lottery regulators)
have confirmed that a game offered on a website may well be regarded as
involving a financial contribution due to the cost of Internet
communication.  This means that the game probably does fall foul of French
lottery legislation.   One way round this might be to offer to reimburse
connection costs.  If this is done, then there are still a couple of
"indirect contribution" issues to sort out (these relate to being seen not
to promote Enron, and so may fall away as in other jurisdictions, although
French law on these matters is generally stricter).  There is also a
possibility that a bailiff needs to be appointed  to adjudicate in the case
of disupute, but I get the impression from the French advice that this could
probably be got round by further discussing the matter with the DGCCRF.

Is offering to reimburse connection costs feasible? - if it isn't then,
there is presumably little point in "tidying up" the indirect contribution"
and "bailiff" issues.

The game will not be a lottery if no prize is awarded i.e. there must be an
expectation of profit/gain. Hence in theory,  not awarding the prize to a
French resident should allow the game to be played in France.  The French
lawyers seemed to have concerns about how this could be done practically - I
am not sure I understand their concerns, and have asked them for
clarification.  I assume that Enrons French customers are French companies,
and that we would need to exclude employees of such companies, together with
employees of other Enron Customers (for example UK companies) who happen to
reside in France. I have asked our colleagues in France for clarification
that such exclusions would suffice, and will forward you the essence of
their replies.



I set out  below a list of countries where the game would be lawful,
providing prizes are not awarded to residents of that country.

Netherlands
Belgium
Sweden
[France] - subject to clarification of our French lawyers concerns
Italy

As mentioned in my previous e-mail, some of these countries may move into
the "approved" list anyway.  I have not received express advice on this
particular issue from Norway - but there advice implies that not awarding
prizes would be ok, and if the tax issue scan be sorted out, Norway may move
to the approved list anyway.  I will however ask them to confirm the "not
awarding prizes" point for completeness.  I have not received advice on this
point from Spain.

You may recall that for the Euro 2000 game, colleagues in Belgium were
concerned that if prizes are not to be awarded to Belgium residents, then
this needs to be made very clear from an early stage, so that Enron are not
misleading partcipants of that country into thinking that they will be
awarded a prize if they are not going to be.  If ineligbility for prizes is
placed prominently in the rules, and partcipants have to read the rules
before playing, then I  guess that this covers this issue.  Although none of
the advice from the other jurisdictions has mentioned this point, I think it
would apply anywhere where partcipants cannot be awarded prizes.


Countries where Enron could avoid liability by using disclaimers pointing
out that residents of that particular country cannot play and by having an
online registration process are:

Spain (based on previous Euro 2000 advice)
Italy
Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden

Belgium - but note the comments made re Euro 2000 that there is a very
slight chance that an online registartion process might raise evidential
difficulties i.e. Enron might not be able to prove in a court that Belgium
participants had been properly advised of their ineligibility.  Belgium law
requires written proof of such terms in contracts with consumers.

Rules

I have not had chance to review the rules in detail.  One issue that may be
important from a European point of view is data protection i.e. protection
of personal data including names and addresses of partcipants and consent to
trnsfer data - I will look into this and let you know.  As mentioned above,
the inelegibility of residents of certain jurisdictions for prizes will need
to be included in the "eligibility" section.

Miscellaneous

One issue which was touched upon in a previous e-mail was whether the word
"Olympic" could be used in a disclaimer.  I will look into this further and
get back to you on this matter next week.  As requested, I will summarize
the Olympic advice for you also.

Regards

Rachel






____________________________________________________________

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or
otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal
rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know
by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not
copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
____________________________________________________________