EU joins Antigua, Seeks Trade Compensations

[fnord_too]

Question: Does someone here know the case law on other internet issues like porn. For instance, I know there were some suits brought against pornographers for violating local decency laws, and I believe the pornographers won. Additionally, I think there was a more recent case where a web cam in a location where strip clubs etc. were not permitted was tried and I believe the judge ruled that the images existed in no physical space (or something like that) so there was no violation even though they were originating where there were decency laws or such.

Point is, I don't think a lot of the issues have really been resolved about where transactions take place and what is legal and illegal, but the courts seem to have been judging that local laws of content publishers apply or federal laws apply, but not local laws of content consumers. Basically, I still think there is a strong legal argument that playing poker on line even in a state that expressly bans it is in fact legal. I believe there are some counter examples too, like child pornography and hate sites, but it seems like the door is open for a strong legal attack. The fact that there is a treaty covering this ratified by the federal government seems to open the door for any state law being voided, too.

[JavaNut]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you expect them to ask for? The state of Delaware?

[/ QUOTE ]


Nate,

I'd be willing to do that. Hell, I'd throw in Rhode Island too.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone from the EU I must protest. Rhode Island, that is an insult. Maybe Minnesota, they almost speak swedish to being with. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Legislurker]

From my understndng of what should happen there are two things to focus on. First, Antigua can apply sanctions until the US negotiates with EVERY nation asking for compensation. Then, if the US doesnt reach a voluntary agreement with an aggrieved party, it goes to an arbitration committee. The arbitrators then award a penalty until the US comes into compliance. My question all along has been if the US can backpedal on their decision to restate their committments. That would be the optimal outcome for us. The WTO has always tried to move things along with compromise and this is totally uncharted territory.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
The Wire Act would not have to be repealed, at least as I understand the whole damn complicated thing, because the US did specifically opt out of sportsbetting "services" way back when. The DOJ and FBI would have to stop saying that the wire act covers anything other than sportsbetting though (a poetic victory in and of itself [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ).
Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Sports is covered by the US commitments in their schedule. The US did not opt out of sports.

The lower panel and the appellate body found that three Federal laws were not in compliance with the GATS. The Wire Act, The Illegal Gambling and Business Act, and the Travel Act.

At the end of the day the US has three choices to come into compliance

1) Allow Antiguan gaming companies unfettered access to the US market.

2) Eliminate ALL remote gaming in the US. This includes horse racing, lotteries, as well as telephone and internet sports betting in Nevada. There are probably some other examples out there, but those are the major ones,

3) Negotiate a bilateral trade agreement with Antigua.

As for the EU's latest move, I think they are business people. The US just put some money on the table and they are going to try and grab some of it. They are not coming forward to look out for their own gaming interests.

They are just using this as an opportunity to get something somewhere else. The most likely place they will seek a concession from the US is agriculture. Maybe they will ask for higher tariffs on US beef or rice. They also have issues with hormone enhanced beef.

There's some poetic justice here since the ranking republican on the House Committee on Agriculture and former Chairman is none other than Bob Goodlatte. His phone should be ringing off the hook when the farm lobby finds out their products are now subject to an extra tariff in the EU because of some gambling issue they had nothing to do with.

[oldbookguy]

The US opted OUT of:

"964 Sporting and other recreational services
9641 Sporting services (OPT OUT 9641 and sub parts)

96411 Sports event promotion services
96412 Sports event organization services
96413 Sports facility operation services
96419 Other sporting services

Read the report:
http://www.internationaltraderelatio...011.10.04).htm
obg


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Wire Act would not have to be repealed, at least as I understand the whole damn complicated thing, because the US did specifically opt out of sportsbetting "services" way back when. The DOJ and FBI would have to stop saying that the wire act covers anything other than sportsbetting though (a poetic victory in and of itself [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ).
Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Sports is covered by the US commitments in their schedule. The US did not opt out of sports.

The lower panel and the appellate body found that three Federal laws were not in compliance with the GATS. The Wire Act, The Illegal Gambling and Business Act, and the Travel Act.

At the end of the day the US has three choices to come into compliance

1) Allow Antiguan gaming companies unfettered access to the US market.

2) Eliminate ALL remote gaming in the US. This includes horse racing, lotteries, as well as telephone and internet sports betting in Nevada. There are probably some other examples out there, but those are the major ones,

3) Negotiate a bilateral trade agreement with Antigua.

As for the EU's latest move, I think they are business people. The US just put some money on the table and they are going to try and grab some of it. They are not coming forward to look out for their own gaming interests.

They are just using this as an opportunity to get something somewhere else. The most likely place they will seek a concession from the US is agriculture. Maybe they will ask for higher tariffs on US beef or rice. They also have issues with hormone enhanced beef.

There's some poetic justice here since the ranking republican on the House Committee on Agriculture and former Chairman is none other than Bob Goodlatte. His phone should be ringing off the hook when the farm lobby finds out their products are now subject to an extra tariff in the EU because of some gambling issue they had nothing to do with.

[/ QUOTE ]

[BluffTHIS!]

bookguy,

Although that report is from 2004, it still postdates the initial beginning committments that the US made in the GATS if I understand the situation correctly. The US has constantly been trying to backpedal in the WTO litigation with Antigua, and has outright lied about being in compliance when that wasn't the case. Jay is very knowledgeable on this matter and is in communication with the principals on the Antigua side.

[Jay Cohen]

I don't know what that web site is. It seems to lay out each sides claims from the dispute. If it says the US has not made a commitment for sports gambling, it is simply wrong. Both WTO panels found the US made a commitment and did not find that sports was not covered.

Read the actual WTO reports, both the lower panel and the Appellate Body.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the EU's latest move, I think they are business people. The US just put some money on the table and they are going to try and grab some of it. They are not coming forward to look out for their own gaming interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not very fair to the gambling companies, no?

[ QUOTE ]
There's some poetic justice here since the ranking republican on the House Committee on Agriculture and former Chairman is none other than Bob Goodlatte. His phone should be ringing off the hook when the farm lobby finds out their products are now subject to an extra tariff in the EU because of some gambling issue they had nothing to do with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Jay Cohen]

From the conclusion of first panel report:

7.2 For the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel concludes as follows: (a) the United States' Schedule under the GATS includes specific commitments on gambling and betting services under sub-sector 10.D;

That's it. It doesn't exclude sports betting.

[JPFisher55]

US opted out of sports related services and products, but not gambling on sporting events.
The farmers, a powerful special interest group with Republicans, would not be happy about EU tariffs on their beef and other products. Isn't this a major issue in the new WTO round of negotiation.
When will we know if other countries seek compensation?