WTO rules against US in Antigua's case

[iponnet]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16830252/

its a start...

[ginko]

No one seems to think this will have any effect, but I do.

[JPFisher55]

It will have an effect but will take time. The WTO process itself may take another year before it can pressure the WTO. However, this ruling is part of a motion to dismiss by Mr. David Carruthers. He is represented by the best criminal defense attorney in St. Louis where I live.
I am sure that this WTO ruling will be part of the defense by the two Neteller founders. Thus, it will hinder the DOJ's efforts in court and cooperation abroad.

[MikeyPatriot]

"The EU has previously said that it was an "interested party" in the case."

I think this is a very interesting tidbit that is hidden at the bottom of the article.

[I Man]

I totally agree. Come on EU. Get in the game. This could be a big breakthrough.

[Checkov]

Tip of the iceburg.

[blutarski]

We've ignored trade complaints by Canada and the EU before. I don't put much stock in this. The prevailing philosophy in the US government is that international trade agreements are fine in principle, but can be ignored when they're inconvenient.

Seriously, do you think the EU is going to take this to the wall for Antigua?

I hope I'm wrong, but...

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
We've ignored trade complaints by Canada and the EU before. I don't put much stock in this. The prevailing philosophy in the US government is that international trade agreements are fine in principle, but can be ignored when they're inconvenient.

Seriously, do you think the EU is going to take this to the wall for Antigua?

I hope I'm wrong, but...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the EU make take this to wall for the gambling companies who stand to make a lot of money from the U.S. market. I hope so anyway.

[BluffTHIS!]

I would like to ask if anyone has a greater degree of knowledge regarding how the US will likely handle this ruling. In the link above, the office of the US Trade Representive at the WTO is quoted, and who says that an administrative change might be all that is needed to comply, and not necessarily a legislative one. But which agencies actually will be involved in framing a US response? I would presume beside the trade rep's office, the Commerce Dept and the DoJ. Can anyone here provide an knowledgeable response as to whether this is so?

Also it seems the US it seems is trying to assert that the only thing the WTO is holding them in non-compliance with, is regarding horse race betting, when from what I have read in the past, the WTO isn't allowing the US to separate that form of gamling out fron all online gambling. Thus the US merely allowing foreign sites to take bets on US or foreign horse racing wouldn't seem to be in full compliance. Anyone with a better understanding of whether that is so or not?


Note I am not discussing whether Antigua can effectively enact retaliatory sanctions if the US doesn't comply, which seems as unlikely as it is likely that the US will continue trying to delay and spin the issue so as to require no legislative changes.

[Jooka]

I think its funny that people think a little island in the atlantic will get the US to change its prospective because the WTO says so. Its like seeing a chiwawa trying to bully a pit bull.

[BluffTHIS!]

Jooka,

The only thing working in our favour is that the US is heavily invested in the WTO process. Nonetheless, it does ignore/spin unfavorable rulings on other issues too. But it is still a piece in the larger issue that might ultimately work out for us in some fashion. The probability that it will impact US policy enough to make a change favorable to online poker might be small, but it's not zero, especially if the EU piles on.

[wpr101]

This is great news even if it is only a pyschological win.

[Jay Cohen]

The US can comply through legislative or administarative actions. I am not sure what they are talking about when they say "judicial." But I have a few ideas.

You are correct when you point out that the Appellate Body and the original panel made no distinction between horse racing and other forms of remote wagering. The US has consistently tried to spin it otherwise. I firmly believe that is why the US leaked this latest decision early, to get a jump on the spin.

What's funny is if you read the original Reuter's story, the US claims it is only responding to press reports. Well, prior to that same story, there were NO other stories out.

The trade world is watching. The US gets more out of the WTO than any other country. The EU, China, Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, and Canada have all weighed in on Antigua's side at some point in this process. The deveoloping world is also watching. The US wants concessions form all of the smaller nations. They tell them join the WTO and we are all on equal footing. Well the Antigua Gambling case is a real issue with those same nations.

I'm looking forward to seeing the upcoming Compliance Panel Report and seeing how it compares with the leaks of the USTR.

[schwa]

I think European Banks could put some pressure on The EU to pursue the matter. I also think a carve out for poker will happen in the next 12 months. It is not a end to the US deficit, but would increase tax revenue and open new trade markets for US companies.

[damaniac]

People really miss a lot. The point isn't so much that Antigua will bring the gov't to its knees as it makes it far more likely that the EU would win if it brought a case. If that happens, the EU would be entitled to a self-help remedy which would exact some cost on the US. Whether the possible sanctions are enough to tip things our way is another matter, but it's not simply a matter of the US deciding it doesn't want to comply and that's it. There's some cost there, at least if and when the EU gets involved.

[Reject]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its funny that people think a little island in the atlantic will get the US to change its prospective because the WTO says so. Its like seeing a chiwawa trying to bully a pit bull.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2741/chihuahuath5.jpg

[Emperor]

The United States already pays millions of dollars in WTO fines. This doesn't get reported by the US media. There is no public concern for how the US interacts with the WTO, because the public is left out of the loop. Even if the US was to lose, and a fine to be levied, it would have to be in the 10's of billions annually for the media to report it, or for the public to care.

Please contact the WTO with your opinions and suggestions here: http://www.wto.org/english/info_e/cont_e.htm

[bluesbassman]

I wish the Brits would send an SAS unit to rescue Mr. Carruthers, who is essentially a political prisoner here in the U.S. They would probably need to take out a handful of DOJ jackboots, which would be a good thing as well.

Yeah, I know, it will never happen, but one can dream...

[DrewOnTilt]

Good to see you again here, Jay, and thanks for chiming in. Keep the insights coming.

[latefordinner]

I don't believe that the EU will risk a bitter dispute process by getting involved in this one way or another. I think this could change however if prominent EU citizens start getting thrown in US jails for prolonged periods of time.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that the EU will risk a bitter dispute process by getting involved in this one way or another. I think this could change however if prominent EU citizens start getting thrown in US jails for prolonged periods of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL the EU would love another bitter trade dispute with the US so clearly in the wrong. A lot of this stuff boils down to dirty deals done late at night at places like Doha and this is a nice big bat to beat the US up with and at the same time pretend to be on the little guy's side (while trying to nick his businesses).

[checkmate36]

Sands is opening up an online poker/casino site in the 2nd Q 07. Maybe they are optomistic that things in the US may change in the future for the better.

Link (http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/12/sands-launch-uk-based-online-poker.htm)

[SCBielski]

Online poker is a billion dollar industry in Europe and where there is money, there is conflict and competition. I don't think Europe will go quietly while we deny them large sums of money. I predict that poker will eventually be distinguished from "online gambling" such as horsetrack betting, blackjack, etc because it is a much more profitable and powerful industry. There's simply too much money tied up in this issue for the US and other countries to ignore it. I've still never even receive a legitimate explanation as to why "online gambling" has been banned.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
I think European Banks could put some pressure on The EU to pursue the matter. I also think a carve out for poker will happen in the next 12 months. It is not a end to the US deficit, but would increase tax revenue and open new trade markets for US companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

schwa? really?

we've already got a schwza and schwah with many k posts.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think European Banks could put some pressure on The EU to pursue the matter. I also think a carve out for poker will happen in the next 12 months. It is not a end to the US deficit, but would increase tax revenue and open new trade markets for US companies.

[/ QUOTE ]



schwa? really?

we've already got a schwza and schwah with many k posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

fight! fight!

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL the EU would love another bitter trade dispute with the US so clearly in the wrong. A lot of this stuff boils down to dirty deals done late at night at places like Doha and this is a nice big bat to beat the US up with and at the same time pretend to be on the little guy's side (while trying to nick his businesses).

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree on the current size of the bat, but not on its potential to get bigger.

The EU has yet to take the US to task on this in an explicit way despite opportunities to do so. As of right now it is still mostly grumbling.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The US can comply through legislative or administarative actions. I am not sure what they are talking about when they say "judicial." But I have a few ideas.

You are correct when you point out that the Appellate Body and the original panel made no distinction between horse racing and other forms of remote wagering. The US has consistently tried to spin it otherwise. I firmly believe that is why the US leaked this latest decision early, to get a jump on the spin.

What's funny is if you read the original Reuter's story, the US claims it is only responding to press reports. Well, prior to that same story, there were NO other stories out.

The trade world is watching. The US gets more out of the WTO than any other country. The EU, China, Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, and Canada have all weighed in on Antigua's side at some point in this process. The deveoloping world is also watching. The US wants concessions form all of the smaller nations. They tell them join the WTO and we are all on equal footing. Well the Antigua Gambling case is a real issue with those same nations.

I'm looking forward to seeing the upcoming Compliance Panel Report and seeing how it compares with the leaks of the USTR.

[/ QUOTE ]


Jay,

Thanks for that response and the view about who exactly leaked this story. Regarding that story though, the trade rep could have just been referring to media questions to her office prior to any story being written. And thus one could also question whether Antigua might have leaked it in order to generate public awareness in the US of the issue prior to the trade rep's office responding to the preliminary report in advance of the official report in a few weeeks.

Either way, regardless of who leaked it, I think it serves our interests here no matter what the interests of the leaking party. More public awareness of US hypocrisy and double-talk in WTO issues, especially now with a diffeernt party in control of congress, can only benefit us.

In particular, senators and congressmen who have previously worked to insure any legislation including the UIGEA doesn't harm horse race betting, should be concerned that an obvious way out of non-compliance is simply for the US to outlaw remote wagering on horse racing, instead of continuing the ridiculous line of argument that the WTO only cares about that, when that clearly isn't the case and they aren't distinguishing horse race betting from other forms of remote wagering.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL the EU would love another bitter trade dispute with the US so clearly in the wrong. A lot of this stuff boils down to dirty deals done late at night at places like Doha and this is a nice big bat to beat the US up with and at the same time pretend to be on the little guy's side (while trying to nick his businesses).

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree on the current size of the bat, but not on its potential to get bigger.

The EU has yet to take the US to task on this in an explicit way despite opportunities to do so. As of right now it is still mostly grumbling.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bat got a lot bigger with UIGEA as it gives a size for the economic damage - the share price falls. The EU are patient enough for the Antigua case to conclude and the timing works quite well for the UK which will only license online sites in Sept 07.

Registering a material interest was taking on the US in an explicit way as was providing evidence to support Antigua's case.

[grizy]

Trust me on this one... EU is already so entangled with the US on issues ranging from farm subsidies, biotech agriculture, to frigging bananas, there is virtually no chance EU will expend energy on internet gambling. In truth, I don't think I want the EU to get involved because everything the EU brings up in the WTO seems to get nowhere at all.

[grizy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL the EU would love another bitter trade dispute with the US so clearly in the wrong. A lot of this stuff boils down to dirty deals done late at night at places like Doha and this is a nice big bat to beat the US up with and at the same time pretend to be on the little guy's side (while trying to nick his businesses).

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree on the current size of the bat, but not on its potential to get bigger.

The EU has yet to take the US to task on this in an explicit way despite opportunities to do so. As of right now it is still mostly grumbling.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bat got a lot bigger with UIGEA as it gives a size for the economic damage - the share price falls. The EU are patient enough for the Antigua case to conclude and the timing works quite well for the UK which will only license online sites in Sept 07.

Registering a material interest was taking on the US in an explicit way as was providing evidence to support Antigua's case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Material interest was never a serious point of contention. US' burden of proof is that the law prohibits domestic online gambling as well as foreign. In the case of horseracing, it was clearly not the case. When it comes to poker, well, that's a different story.

Furthermore, this actually might have the opposite effect of what we might expect... if they want to keep UIGEA on teh books while complying with WTO ruling, the simplest solution would be to simply enforce it harder... effectively prohibiting online gambling of any kind. Which, frankly, is the route the DoJ seems intent on taking.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Trust me on this one... EU is already so entangled with the US on issues ranging from farm subsidies, biotech agriculture, to frigging bananas, there is virtually no chance EU will expend energy on internet gambling. In truth, I don't think I want the EU to get involved because everything the EU brings up in the WTO seems to get nowhere at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that at Davos the US has just agreed to cut farming subsidies to $15bn dollars I wouldn't say the EU always fails to make progress. I do agree that the EU is likely to use Internet Gambling as a lever to get concessions elsewhere but they will want to spend energy on it precisely for this reason.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, this actually might have the opposite effect of what we might expect... if they want to keep UIGEA on teh books while complying with WTO ruling, the simplest solution would be to simply enforce it harder... effectively prohibiting online gambling of any kind. Which, frankly, is the route the DoJ seems intent on taking.

[/ QUOTE ]

grizy,

They have to buck the horse racing interests first, and the B&M gaming interests which would like to expand into online gambling second. Furthermore it is clear that the DoJ can't do anything against the horse racing interests, as the IUGEA as well as other legislation makes it clear that horse race wagering is not within the scope of such legislation. So the DoJ would have to seek legislative measures to undo that.

Regarding your views as to what the EU is or is not likely to do, there is another side to the issue, which is internal EU conflicts over the wishes of some member nations to regulate online gaming in a non-free trade manner even within the EU, which is inconsistent with its own laws/policies. So if France and other nations get rebuffed internally in their attempts to allow only online gaming for their citizens by their own companies, then such nations wouldn't seem as likely to allow the EU to sit by on the issue internationally vis-a-vis the US. Of course this is speculation either way, but I would think that within a year of the WTO issuing its formal ruling in a few weeks, we will know whether they will in fact pile on with Antigua.

[Elijah Bailey]

The Eu probably doesn't care much about Antigua. They do care about the billions of dollars disappearing out of the economy due to actions taken by the US. I do not have a link available but a British trade rep has urged the British companies to not turn over IPO documentation in response to the recent subpoenas. He followed that with a recommendation that the US government take a moment to consider their actions. I wish I had the exact wording because it sounded very much like a thinly veiled threat.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that the EU will risk a bitter dispute process by getting involved in this one way or another. I think this could change however if prominent EU citizens start getting thrown in US jails for prolonged periods of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0130/breaking44.htm

This article suggests they will but are not rushing too it.

[ QUOTE ]
"In my view it is probably a restrictive practice, and we might take it up in another fora," EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy told the European Parliament.

The United States was protecting its own gambling industry by stopping foreign companies from entering the online betting sector, Mr McCreevy said.

However, Mr McCreevy said: "It's not my intention to bring forward a harmonised piece of legislation on gambling in the European Union."

Mr McCreevy had declared that the US rules were a "prima facie" case of protectionism and that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was a possible venue for tackling them. However, due to the WTO's protracted negotiations to secure a new world trade agreement, he would not rush to file a complaint.

"It's not something of major momentum," Mr McCreevy said. There have been no face-to-face talks about the issue with Peter Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, he added.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe contacting Peter Mandelson at the EU and saying you want to use EU based sites would help push it up the priorities list.