[Skallagrim]

"But the WTO also ruled that the U.S. was justified in being afraid of remote wagering. It is only because federal law allows bets on horse races across state lines that it is discriminating against Antigua. So the only damages should be for bets on horse races that Antigua's licensed race books cannot take from the U.S."

I first though this too, but after a little further research (with help from Jay Cohen), this is not the WTO ruling.

That the US allows some "remote wagering" on horses and fantasy sports and state lotteries, is the reason the WTO rejected the "morals" defense put forward by the US. Once the morals defense was rejected, the ruling applied to ALL remote gambling, not just the horse racing, etc...

Think of it this way: Muslim WTO members typically ban imports of alcohol, they have a "morals" defense because they also ban any domestic production of alcohol. But if one of those countries was to suddenly let a domestic company produce only rum, they would lose the morals defense and could not argue that they should only have to let in foreign rum but not foreign vodka, scotch, wine, etc...

Skallagrim