Would A $100 Billion Fine Get The US To Pay Attention To Antigua's WTO Win?
from the your-attention-please... dept
We've covered the long and detailed saga of Antigua fighting the US via the WTO, but the short summary is this: Antigua claims that the US is violating a free trade agreement in banning online gambling (many online gambling firms are in Antigua). The WTO agreed with Antigua and the US proceeded to ignore the ruling. The WTO again sided with Antigua... and the US pretended the WTO had sided with the US... and again ignored the ruling. This has happened a few more times, with the US eventually unilaterally changing the terms of the free trade agreement -- which didn't satisfy either the WTO or Antigua. Of course, with Antigua being such a small country there has been little in the way of ramifications for the US for ignoring the ruling. That's why Antigua is now pushing for the right to ignore US copyrights and patents as a remedy. However, there may be an even more persuasive remedy. Back over the summer, the EU indicated that it might start siding with Antigua in the dispute -- and it's a lot more difficult for the US to simply ignore the EU. To make the situation even more fun, the latest news is that gambling firms in the EU are pushing for $100 billion in damages from the US. That's certainly an unlikely number, but it's going to get plenty of attention either way. If the EU (and Japan, apparently) really do take Antigua's side in this, the US may finally be forced to acknowledge that it lost. However, it still seems quite unlikely that it will stop the ban on online gambling any time soon.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antigua, online gambling, wto
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nah
And what are they going to do if we ignore them again? Declare war? These countries seem to forget the number of times the US has helped bail them out of bad situations. Let them whine because they can't do much more than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah
Yeah you really bailed out Japan by helping them rebuild after some asshole nation dropped atomic bombs on their cities. Who was that again? Iran? North Korea? Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Oh that's right, there's only one nation on earth that's ever used atomic weapons in war, The United States (God bless the U. S. of A).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nah
Let's see.... We were um, "At War". They failed to agree to our terms of unconditional surrender. Of course, there was a bit more to it than that, but put simply, it was deemed the quickest and least consequential move at the time. Yes, even in terms of cost of lives.
But I digress...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nah
a moment and looking at it in the proper
historical context.
Dropping the atomic bomb saved more lives than
it took. One of the most striking moments in
the book Hiroshima (written by a survivor) is
the people being brought to tears by the emperor
of Japan announcing the surrender.
It was a brutal act, but it was the right thing
to do at the time. Japan wasn't going to surrender
and the estimated loss of lives (on both sides)
required for the invasion of Japan was staggering.
If you don't see the differences between the USA
and Iran, North Korea, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany,
visit www.democide.com Also by invoking the Nazi
on teh intarwebs you're immediately branded as a saliva dripping rabid moonbat... justly so.
Frankly, if you offer someone aid, you shouldn't
expect anything in return. So I don't support that
argument.
I still don't see how gambling is construed as a
protected form of trade and not narcotics, or what
have you. If it's illegal in the USA they should
have a right to prevent others from providing it
within their borders. Regardless of the method
of delivery.
I don't think non-state sanctioned gambling should
be illegal but that's another issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nah
From what I hear if a certain form of gambling is illegal in your state, then it is illegal to do online. So if I go online to play Blackjack I could be fined because Blackjack is illegal in my state.
But I have also heard that it is the act of transferring money into your gambling account that is the illegal part (from banks or any source). Does anyone know for sure what the actual law says concerning online gambling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nah
> bombs on their cities
It was actually Japan that was the asshole nation when it started the war with the USA. It's their own fault they got their asses kicked.
Don't start a fight unless you can win it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nah
How is online gambling part of any agreement we signed with the WTO? Gambling is outlawed in many forms around the US and the government has the right to outlaw online gambling. It's illegal to begin with, but the WTO is stepping in and saying we have to make it legal? Why?
Does that mean we suddenly have to declare drugs legal just because Columbia takes it's case to the WTO? The WTO shouldn't even be involved since it is a law passed in our country to extend something that was already illegal in the first place. Gambling for the most part is illegal in some forms in certain states, but these gambling websites don't take this into accounts (i.e. black jack and most table games). We have the right in our country to outlaw something and not fear retribution from some organization like the WTO.
As for WWII and the bombing of Japan...They were killing our troops and performing unspeakable crimes on our POW citizens. We asked for surrender many times and they ignored us. It was a sad recourse in history, but I doubt anyone in the US realized the nuke would not only kill the initial people, but continue to poison the survivors. I think we grossly underestimated the amount of damage the bombs would do and have since felt remorse for the decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nah
Not really since they are saying we outlaw online gambling only from other countries when in fact we outlaw it period. The WTO need to realize online gambling and domestic gambling are two completely different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Hey - we helped you out, so now we can ignore a treaty we signed and agreed to abide by, and you can't say anything!" - what's up with that?
And I'd say that the EU and Japan have paid back the US for that help by now. Or should the French claim the same of the US for the help given the Continental Army in the War of Independence?
"Washington - we helped you against the British back in 1776: please start licking our feet."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
most of the time, i'm pretty fucking embarrassed to be an american.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shmengie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: shmengie
What will be interesting is, if they get permission from the UN to ignore US copyrights. A new untouchable haven for file sharing services would pop up over night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: shmengie
Yes! screw the first amendment! anyone who doesn't like the US or tries to criticize it loses their citizenship to an immigrant who is also not allowed to criticize the US or else!
puh-lease!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: shmengie
> next illegal Mexican who is proud to be
> here and loves American ideals and history.
Good luck finding one of those. Most of them can't even speak English, let alone give you a rundown on American history. They're only in America for a paycheck (which they promptly send back to Mexico), nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: shmengie
Well, most Mexicans in the US speak English and Spanish, while most US Americans speak only English. It is this lack of education that makes it so easy for US companies to outsource your job in the US to countries where people speak more than one language, comprehend natural sciences including concepts like evolution, respect other people and their property, and aren't so fat around the waist and brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: shmengie
that lure the corporations to send production
line jobs sent south of the border.
Because, large corporations actively seek
workers snapping two widgets together on
a slide line that comprehend the natural
sciences.
Paying them eighty percent lower wages is
just a happy consequence of that concern
You're a pathetic failure as a troll.
Or as we say in America "Grow a brain moran."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: shmengie
Not in my experience. I can't even order fast food here in Northern Virginia half the time because the person at the counter can't understand me.
> It is this lack of education that makes it so easy for US
> companies to outsource your job in the US
LOL! No, my job is not going to be outsourced anywhere. It can't be. That would violate federal law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shmengie
You do hate America. I bet you get a woody when you hear American troops die in Iraq.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shmengie, I am embarrassed that you are an American too.
As for France, WWI paid them back for 1776. They still owe us for WWII.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I love how people on the *anonymous* internet can get so pious towards folks who actually don't try to hide their anonymity.
You discredit *everything* he says because of his anonymity?
Let's have it then. Your real name and address. Otherwise, you're not only just another "anonymous coward", you're one that tries pitifully to hide that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: History
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: History
It has nothing to do with who owes who favors. It has to do with what is right.
US law says online gambling is illegal. In order to enforce the law, the US felt it necessary to stop the transfer of money from US banks to known offshore gambling locations, in this case, Antigua.
The US is a member of the WTO and has agreed to abide by its rulings. The WTO agreed with Antiguas claim that the US violated trade agreements. The US ignored, repeatedly, the WTO rulings.
Those are the generalities of the situation. Argue on those and not who saved who in some bygone war because that just adds more points that no one can agree on.
And argue doesn't mean flame, whine or going off on uncomprehensible tangents. It means to debate the facts (which is a pipe dream in itself due to no one being able to agree on the facts).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil War!
DON'T STEAL!! The .GOV hates competition!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever..?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not bloody likely
It's worked so well for the Democrats here in the states...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact is, we are a superpower. You don't mess with a superpower. I would consider China to be a superpower also. If China would drive its tanks over its citizens again, what do you think we would do about it? Not attend the olympics? Talk bad about them in the media? Talk about limiting their imports?
We could walk in and wipe out Antigua and there really isn't a whole lot anyone could do about it. I am not saying we will or should, but that is a fact.
Life isn't fair. We have the bomb and Iran doesn't. Guess what, the US and a few other countries (that also have the bomb) won't let them get it.
Everything else is just talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What morality? They didn't outlaw ALL gambling, there's still lots of "approved" gambling. If it was a moral issue they'd have outlawed all of gambling.
While they may have phrased the passage of the law as "morality" it most certainly was anything but morality that they were pushing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US believes that online gambling should not be allowed. Why should the US govt allow the WTO to override our laws of the land.
If a country were to allow child porn, would the WTO force the US to allow that also?
Following the rules? Can I import booze into Saudi Arabia? No, it is outlawed there. Why can't the US prevent online gambling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the US is stupid on this one.
They have no concept of ethical behavior. They can't set any kind of example where the US treats others as they would have them selfs be treated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Godwin's Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hating America
>> Why do so many of you hate America?
It is not "hating America" to state the US's actions in this case are embarrassing and hypocritical. We're (meaning of course the Bush administration) acting like one set of rules applies to the entire rest of the world, but not to us. Did I leave out "arrogant"?
Don't forget that we've been major backers of the WTO treaties we're ignoring here. And, of course, we're invoking them whenever a trade issue is not going our way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTO
To quote the linked article: "The high profile prosecution led the Antiguan authorities to file a formal complaint with the W.T.O., because the U.S. continued to allow US companies to offer various forms of remote domestic gambling while aggressively prosecuting Antiguan companies under legislation originally drafted to fight the mob."
Apparently, the treaty underlying the W.T.O. -- a treaty the U.S. signed -- prevents selective enforcement of laws to benefit domestic firms at the expense of foreign firms.
To quote another article: "In essence, if the United States was going to say that 'remote' gambling was so bad that it was necessary to prohibit it across the board, then it indeed needed to be consistent about that, and not use the claim as a way to discriminate against foreign trade...The United States has a wide variety of legal, domestic-only remote gambling operating currently...Further, something that so many people have not realised but this last panel finally got right, and that is that federal law doesn't prohibit remote gambling at all - just remote gambling that crosses a state or international border."
So, to use your example of child porn, if the U.S. enforces its child porn laws with roughly equal zeal for both domestic distributors and foreign distributors, they could probably fight off an attempt by some other nation to have sanctions placed because of interference with the trade of child porn.
Similarly, with your example of alcohol and Saudi Arabia, if Saudi Arabia enforces its anti-alcohol laws equally between Saudis and foreign nationals, the U.S. probably wouldn't be able to have sanctions placed on Saudi Arabia for interference in the sale of alcohol.
If the U.S. doesn't want to be subject to the terms of international treaties, it simply has to stop signing them. It can't sign them and then ignore them, any more than I can sign a mortgage and then not make my monthly payments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTO
What exactly are these? I've never heard that just because an online gambling company is based in the US that you can gamble there. Can you link the source for me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think about it, its not that difficult. The US law says online gambling is illegal, the WTO didn't accept that there is a difference between online gambling and physical gambling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mark Murphy's post
Yes, but the government does exactly that with our mounting trade deficit. (9 trillion and growing...)
Evidently, American's aren't even supposed to view gambling ads anymore...as the site below states.
http://www.the-best-online-casinos-tips.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell, I can program an online gambling game in a few days that would attract a ridiculous amount of users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
right in the a**
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violation
Yes...the war had everything to do with oil and not one bit to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein was alienating and killing his citizens based on their beliefs, that they were harboring a terrorist who killed thousands of Americans, and also continually lied to us and prevented the UN from performing proper checks for dangerous weapons....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Violation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Violation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Violation
what known terrorist that had killed thousands of US citizens was Saddam harboring?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Violation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Violation
> > thousands of US citizens was Saddam
> > harboring?
> Uh...Bin Laden...
Uh... no.
Bin Laden was never in Iraq, nor did Hussein harbor him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violation
unimaginative, unconvincing and boring. It is
a failed rant, cut and pasted from other failed
rants.
The only thing I dislike more than the Iraq war
are the paper thin intellects that bring it up
no matter what issue regarding the USA is the
topic of discussion.
P.S Did you read about the Syrian technicians
that died recently while trying to load a VX agent
warhead onto one of their missiles? Terrible loss,
but I'm sure it was done in the name of science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Violation
"But I don't like Hummus".
"Comrade, comes the Liberation, we'll ALL eat Hummus."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha HA
morality . And you can check and see that some of the same people that voted for this have been found in the restroom or emailing boys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, back to the issue at point.
It really is pretty simple. The US doesn't allow Internet gambling. It does allow physical gambling. The WTO decided that we should allow Internet gambling and since we don't, want to do something about it.
The question is should we allow a foreign governing body dictate what our domestic laws are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When the US signs the treaty to be a part of this foreign governing body, yes, it should dictate our domestic laws. So, you're asking the wrong question. I believe what you intended to ask is "should we allow the treaties that we have signed to dictate what our domestic laws are?" I think you can find the answer in article VI of the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remote vs. online gambling
-- You don't have to be at a horse racing track to bet on horse races, courtesy of off-track betting (O.T.B.) parlors. I seem to recall various state-level initiatives to allow telephone-based O.T.B., though I don't follow horse racing and don't know how far along that got. As far as I know, O.T.B. even lets you bet across state lines, on races held elsewhere in the country.
-- You don't have to be at the facility where lottery numbers are drawn to participate in a lottery.
Antigua basically then had a two-tier defense against a U.S. "morals" claim:
1. The U.S. can't be morally against gambling, since it has state-sponsored gambling (lotteries)
2. The U.S. can't be against remote gambling, since it has state-regulated remote gambling (lotteries, horse racing), and there's no logical difference between remote gambling by visiting a Quik-E-Mart (lotteries) and remote gambling by computer.
In reality, there are differences, such as an easier time enforcing age restrictions on gambling at Quik-E-Marts, but they apparently weren't enough, or the US didn't invest much in a defense at the W.T.O. hearings. I get the sense that the U.S. pretty much ignored the whole W.T.O. mess -- either we need to live up to our international obligations (and possibly work to change the W.T.O.'s procedures and policies to avoid this issue in the future), or we need to withdraw from the W.T.O. The former takes work, the latter has financial and political ramifications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remote vs. online gambling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bah! Just wait 20 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please... don't vote for any incumbents this election, lean as 'out of the box' politically as you can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broken Treaties!!!
2. The government sucks
3. The GOVernment (and this true of most not just the US) has only abide by them until the become inconvenient. Oops except the ones that get us into wars. Funny how that works.
Couple quotes for you:
"Treaties, you see, are like girls and roses; they last while they last." - Charles de Gaulle (never thought I'd quote a frenchman, Oh wait Voltaire was a frenchmen)
Treaties are made by statesman.
"Now I know what a statesman is; he's a dead politician. We need more statesmen." - Bob Edwards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Broken Treaties!!!
3. The GOVernment (and this true of most not just the US)only abides by them (treaties) until they become inconvenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Broken Treaties!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do as I say not as I do
It's about time other countries start turning 'Free Trade' back on the U.S. 'Free Trade' agreements seem to be weighted in the U.S's favour. - give us access to your markets while we protect and subsidise our own. eg farmer subsidies in the U.S. Not to mention the fact that some of the agreements allow companies to sue countries if the countries environmental laws prevent the said companies from doing what they want. U.S. I think you might say is being 'Hoisted by it's own petard'
http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=188
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeR elated/FreeTrade/Regional.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
4 numbers, 1 conclusion
US: ~295 million people
US$/EURO: 1.41
Over the past half decade, the US$ lost more than 7% per year.
Not all US jobs have been outsourced yet, there are still some left at Walmart. Now, shut up and play by the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 4 numbers, 1 conclusion
"Now, shut up and play by the rules."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would A $100 Billion Fine Get The US To Pay Attent
Why is online lotto legal but online casino and gambling are illegal?
Above all, why is lotto legal in all the states but gambling in some parts of US by the citizens is illegal?
I think I am too dumb to comprehend the logic behind this conundrum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US vs WTO
BTW - The US isn't the only country that has chosen to ignore WTO decisions when they weren't popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]