Link to Antigua and Barbuda court win over US

[LeDan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070126/wr_nm/usa_gambling_wto_dc_2

[LeDan]

A large portion of the world including Great Britain is tolerant to interent gambling. This has carried over to the world's high courts. The US will eventually have no other recourse but to regulate online gambling. At least that's how I see it.

From the article:

At issue is an April 2005 World Trade Organization ruling against U.S. prohibitions on online horse race betting. Since then, the U.S. Congress has passed additional legislation to ban betting over the Internet.

Gretchen Hamel, a spokesman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office, confirmed press reports that a WTO panel "did not agree with the United States that we had taken the necessary steps to comply" with that ruling.

^ WTO has the US in a legal bind. Positive developments. To be continued...

[JPFisher55]

"A narrow issue of federal law" Yeah, the Wire Act and related statutes violate Gatt. Sure the DOJ could comply without any legislation. Just dismiss its cases against Mr. Carruther and the Neteller founders and stop enforcing the Wire Act against the online gambling industry.
I wish that the trade representative from Antiqua had been quoted. I look forward to reading the report. This makes the DOJ intimidation war more difficult.

[I_C_ALL]

I disagree. I don't think the powers that be here really care. I remember hearing that if the USA doesn't comply, it gives the affected countries(Antigua and Barbuda) the right to disregard USA international rules(or something like that) The ramification was a circumvention(is that a word?) of copyright laws. The online companies could then purchase "new" hardware and make copies of windows, music, dvd's and sell those online.

I don't know if the above scenario is accurate, but if so, could be interesting. At best, I see this as long term pressure if it comes into play at all. I could be wrong, but if you're in the US, I'd say it would be more prudent to either seek out B&M alternatives, move or something else.

[ekdikeo]

The U.S. would be all over promoting what was said, if it was actually favorable, instead of just saying "it was favorable".

[Zele]

Looks like pretty good news (or as good as news gets these days). I wish Jay Cohen still posted here.

Forgive me for this pessimistic hypothetical, but wouldn't it be ironic if, after the Republican Congress passed UIGEA, the Democratic Congress' hostility to the WTO kept it in force?

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me for this pessimistic hypothetical, but wouldn't it be ironic if, after the Republican Congress passed UIGEA, the Democratic Congress' hostility to the WTO kept it in force?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironic would not be the right word /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Def. good news tho /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ASD99]

thanks for the link...i have read this over twice quite quickly but still can't decide really what this means...obviously this is a good thing for us but just how good because it sure doesn't seem like the US gov has complied in the past so why now?

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
"The panel report clarifies that compliance does not necessarily require new legislation, but could instead involve other steps, such as administrative or judicial action,"

[/ QUOTE ]


What could this mean?

[Reject]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The panel report clarifies that compliance does not necessarily require new legislation, but could instead involve other steps, such as administrative or judicial action,"

[/ QUOTE ]


What could this mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think by other steps they mean sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending like they didn't hear anything.

[ollie5050]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The panel report clarifies that compliance does not necessarily require new legislation, but could instead involve other steps, such as administrative or judicial action,"

[/ QUOTE ]


What could this mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think by other steps they mean sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending like they didn't hear anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like the US Governemt.. As we say at work: "Work at the Speed of Government"

[grizy]

It means the WTO judiciary body has ruled in favor of two tiny countries with virtually no political infuence. WTO rules by consensus... and that means it will be very very difficult for WTO to actually do anything consequential to the United States.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
It means the WTO judiciary body has ruled in favor of two tiny countries with virtually no political infuence. WTO rules by consensus... and that means it will be very very difficult for WTO to actually do anything consequential to the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Short term this is right but it is important to note that the EU has registered a material interst in the case which means that at the end of this process they will be able to impose sanctions of equal value on the US.

Given the effect on UK shares such sanctions would be substantial and can be chosen for maximum political impact. The WTO is slow and the EU currently taking a back seat role but in a couple of years, with UK based sites involved, this will be important not just to poker but to lots of trade issues.

[Robin Foolz]

"Nothing in the panel's interim report undermines the broad, favorable results that the United States obtained from the WTO in April 2005," she said.

wtf is this person talking about?

[1p0kerboy]

Some of the previous findings of the WTO favored the US.

[1p0kerboy]

^^^^^ It's not as much of a black and white case as the media makes it sound.

[Robin Foolz]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the previous findings of the WTO favored the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

i was under the impression the april 2005 wto ruling was against the usa.

An April 2005 ruling by the WTO's Appellate Body, which both sides claimed as vindication, focused on the narrower issue of horse racing, saying that foreign betting operators appeared to suffer discrimination.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
as the media makes it sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

[1p0kerboy]

It was mostly against the U.S.

The U.S. tries to put a spin on it to sound almost like it favored them.

Gambling friendly media tries to put a spin on it to sound almost like it is entirely against the U.S.

The panel considered many different items. Some favored the U.S. Other didn't.

Google: WTO gambling Antigua

[1p0kerboy]

unbiased link (http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds285_e.htm)

[Mendacious]

I think the US is referring to the appeal which--

reversed the Panel’s finding that the United States had not shown that the three federal statutes are “necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order”, within the meaning of Article XIV(a); found that the United States’ measures are justified under Article XIV(a) of the GATS as measures “necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order”; and upheld, albeit on a narrower ground, the Panel’s finding that the United States had failed to show that these measures satisfy the conditions of the chapeau of Article XIV.