GLOBALIZATION & TRADE ISSUES

» Corporate Power

» Jobs, Wages and Economic Outcomes

» Food Safety

» Access to Affordable Medicines

» Corporate-rigged “Trade” Pacts

» Alternatives to Corporate Globalization

» Other Issues

Trade Data Center

One-stop shop for searchable trade databases, case lists & more

Eyes on Trade

Global Trade Watch blog on trade & globalization. Subscribe to RSS.

Debunking Trade Myths

To hide the facts about failed trade policies, proponents are changing the data

Connect with GTW

What's New – Global Trade Watch

View 'What's New' Archives

GATS and Gambling
In 2005, the WTO appellate tribunal handed down a final ruling on the U.S-Gambling case, one of only two cases that have been decided exclusively on the GATS. Because the ruling clarified how the WTO interprets ambiguous GATS language, it is a watershed decision that shows how the tribunal may rule on future GATS cases.

Antigua, which has a significant Internet gambling industry, challenged U.S. remote gambling laws under GATS rules. The WTO decided that U.S. federal, state and local gambling laws and regulations are subject to GATS rules, despite the USTR's stated position that it never intended to commit gambling services. As a result of the WTO ruling, limits on the number of service suppliers (e.g. on the number of casinos), monopolies (e.g. monopolistic state lotteries) and exclusive service provider arrangements (e.g. Indian gaming compacts) are prohibited. The WTO also ruled that regulatory bans are considered a "quota of zero," which would put state bans on gambling at risk for a challenge at the WTO.

In response to this ruling, 29 state attorneys general wrote a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) raising serious concerns about the implications of the ruling for state regulation of gambling in particular, and for state regulatory authority in general. Finally in 2007, the Bush administration made an unprecedented decision that it will withdraw the U.S. gambling service sector from World Trade Organization (WTO) jurisdiction. Although this was good news, the fact that this action will trigger major demands by other countries for compensation under WTO rules also highlights how the fast track negotiating system has enabled a series of trade pacts that undermine the public interest.

For More Information:


Related Documents

Copyright © 2016 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

You can support the fight for greater government and corporate accountability through a donation to either Public Citizen, Inc., or Public Citizen Foundation, Inc.

Public Citizen lobbies Congress and federal agencies to advance Public Citizen’s mission of advancing government and corporate accountability. When you make a contribution to Public Citizen, you become a member of Public Citizen, showing your support and entitling you to benefits such as Public Citizen News. Contributions to Public Citizen are not tax-deductible.

Public Citizen Foundation focuses on research, public education, and litigation in support of our mission. By law, the Foundation can engage in only very limited lobbying. Contributions to Public Citizen Foundation are tax-deductible.