WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DS285/2
13 June 2003
(03-3174)
Original:  English
UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY
OF GAMBLING AND BETTING SERVICES
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Antigua and Barbuda
The following communication, dated 12 June 2003, from the Permanent Delegation of
Antigua and Barbuda to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to
Article 6.2 of the DSU.
_______________
The Government of Antigua and Barbuda considers that certain measures of central, regional
or local governments and authorities of the United States are inconsistent with the United States'
commitments and obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) withrespect to the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services.
The rules applying to the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services in the United
States are complex and comprise a mixture of state and federal law.  The relevant laws are listed in
Sections I and II of the Annex attached to this request.  Although this is not always clear on the face
of the text of these laws, relevant United States authorities take the view that these laws (separately or
in combination) have the effect of prohibiting all supply of gambling and betting services fromoutside the United States to consumers in the United States.  Section III of the Annex lists examples
of measures by non-legislative authorities of the United States applying these laws to the cross-border
supply of gambling and betting services.  The measur es listed in the Annex only come within the
scope of this dispute to the extent that these measures prevent or can prevent operators from Antigua
and Barbuda from lawfully offering gambling and betting services in the United States underconditions of competition compatible with the United States' obligations.
The total prohibition of gambling and betting services offered from outside the United States
appears to conflict with the United States' obligations under GATS and its Schedule of Specific
Commitments annexed to the GATS (and in particular  Sector 10.D thereof) for the following reasons:
(a) The central, regional or local authorities of the United States allow numerous
operators of United States origin to offer all types of gambling and betting services in
the United States (sometimes via exclusive rights or monopolistic structures).  There
appears to be no possibility for foreign operators, however, to obtain an authorizationto supply gambling and betting services from outside the United States.  This appears
to conflict with the United States' commitments and obligations under GATS,
including Articles VI:1, VI:3, VIII:1, VIII:5, XVI:1, XVI:2, XVII:1, XVII:2 and
XVII:3 and its Schedule of Specific Commitments.
(b) The United States authorities also restrict international transfers and payments
relating to gambling and betting services offered from outside the United States.WT/DS285/2
Page 2
Some of the non-legislative measures listed in Section III of the Annex are examples
thereof:  the measures described in the documents released by the Florida Attorney
General and the New York Attorney General.  These restrictions appear to violate
Articles VI:1, XI:1, XVI: 1, XVII:1, XVII:2 and XVII:3 of GATS and the United
States' Schedule of Specific Commitments.
On 13 March 2003, the Government of Antigua and Barbuda requested consultations with the
Government of the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Article XXIII of the GATS regarding measures
affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services.  The United States, and Antigua
and Barbuda held such consultations in Geneva on 30 April 2003 but these consultations did not
resolve the dispute.
Accordingly, Antigua and Barbuda respectfully requests the Dispute Settlement Body to
establish a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU to examine this matter with the standard terms of
reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.WT/DS285/2
Page 3
ANNEX
I. U NITED STATES FEDERAL LEGISLATION
The measures taken by the United States Congress which infringe on the obligations of the
United States under the GATS include, without limitation, the following:
15 U.S.C. §§ 3001 to 3007
18 U.S.C. § 2
18 U.S.C. §§ 1081, 1084
18 U.S.C. §§ 1301 to 130718 U.S.C. § 1952
18 U.S.C. § 1953
18 U.S.C. § 1955
28 U.S.C. §§ 3701 to 3704
39 U.S.C. § 3005
II. S
TATE AND TERRITORIAL LEGISLATION
The measures taken by the various States and Territories of the United States which infringe
on the obligations of the United States under the GATS include, without limitation, the following:
Alabama
ALA. CODE §§ 13A-12-20 to 13A-12-31 (1977).
Alaska
ALASKA STAT. § 05.15.180 (1997).
ALASKA STAT. §§ 11.66.200 to  11.66.280 (1978).
Arizona
ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 13-3301 to  13-3312 (2001).
Arkansas
ARK. STAT. ANN. §§ 5-66-101 to  5-66-119 (1987).
California
CAL. PENAL CODE §§ 319-337z  (West Supp. 2003).
CAL. BUS. & P ROF. CODE § 19800-19807 (West. Supp. 2003).
Colorado
COLO. CONST . art. XVIII, § 2.
COLO. REV. STAT. §§ 18-10-101 to  18-10-108 (1999).
COLO. REV. STAT. §§ 12-47.1-101 to  12-47.1-106 (1996).WT/DS285/2
Page 4
Connecticut
CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 53-278a to 53-278g (2001).
Delaware
DEL CONST . art. 2, §17.
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, §§  1401-32, 1470-73 (2002).
District of Columbia
D.C. C ODE ANN. §§ 22-1701 to 22-1712 (2001).
Florida
FLA. STAT. §§ 849.01 to  849.46 (2000).
Georgia
GA. CONST . art. 1, § 2.
GA. CODE ANN. §§16-12-20 to 16-12-62 (2003).
Hawaii
HAW. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 712-1220 to 712-1231 (Michie 1973).
Idaho
IDAHO CONST . art. III, § 20.
IDAHO CODE §§ 18-3801 to  18-3810 (1992).
Illinois
ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 720, §§ 5/28-1 to  5/28-9 (1993).
Indiana
IND. CODE §§ 35-45-5-1 to 35-45-5-8 (1998).
Iowa
IOWA CODE §§ 725.5 to  725.16 (1993).
Kansas
KAN. CRIM. CODE ANN. § 21-4303 to  21-4308 (1995).
Kentucky
KY. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 528.010 to  528.120 (Baldwin’s  1974).WT/DS285/2
Page 5
Louisiana
LA. CONST . art. XII, § 6.
LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 14:90.- .4 (West  1986).
Maine
ME. REV. STAT. ANN., tit. 17, §§ 330-347 (1983).
ME. REV. STAT. ANN., tit. 17, §§ 2305-2306 (1983).
Maryland
MD. CODE ANN., CRIM. LAW, §§12-101 to 12-307 (2002).
Massachusetts
MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 271, §§ 1-50 (West 2000).
Michigan
MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. §§ 750.301-750.315a (West 1990).
Minnesota
MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 609.75-609.763 (Supp. 2003).
Mississippi
MISS. CODE ANN. §§ 97-33-1 to 97-33-203 (1999).
Missouri
MO. ANN. STAT. §§ 572.010-572.125 (West 1995).
Montana
MONT. CONST . art. III, §9.
MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 23-5-101 to 23-5-810 (1993).
Nebraska
NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 28-1101 to 28-1117 (1995).
Nevada
NEV. REV. STAT. § 202.450 (1999).
NEV. REV. STAT. § 463.160 (2001).
New Hampshire
N. H. R EV. STAT. ANN. § 647:2 (1999).WT/DS285/2
Page 6
New Jersey
N.J. C ONST . art. IV, § 7.
N. J. S TAT. ANN. §§ 2A:40-1 to 2A:40-9 (2000).
N. J. S TAT. ANN. §§ 2C:37-1 to 2C:37-9 (1995).
N. J. S TAT. ANN. § 5:5-63 (1996).
N. J. S TAT. ANN. §§ 5:12-1 to 5:12-210 (1996).
New Mexico
N.M. S TAT. ANN. §§ 30-19-1 to 30-19-15 (1978).
New York
N.Y. C ONST .  art. I, §9.
N.Y. E XECUTIVE LAW §§ 430-439a (McKinney 1996).
N.Y. P ENAL LAW §§ 225.00-225.40 (McKinney 1999).
N.Y. G ENERAL OBLIGATION LAW §§ 5-401 to 5-423 (McKinney 2001).
North Carolina
N. C. G EN. STAT. §§ 14-289 to 14-309.4 (1994).
North Dakota
N.D. C ONST . art. 11, § 25.
N.D. C ENT. CODE § 12.1-28-01 to 12.1-28-02 (1987).
Ohio
OHIO CONST . art. XV, § 6.
OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 2915.01-2915.06 (1996).
Oklahoma
OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 3A, § 205.6 (West 1993).
OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, §§ 941-993 (West 2002).
Oregon
OR. REV. STAT. §§ 167.108-167.170 (2001).
Pennsylvania
PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 18, § 911 (Purdon 1998).
PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 18, § 5513 (Purdon 2000).
PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 66, § 2902 (Purdon 2000).
Rhode Island
R.I. C ONST . art. VI, § 22.
R. I.  G EN. LAWS §§ 11-19-1 to 11-19-45 (1993).
R. I.  G EN. LAWS § 11-51-1 to 11-51-2 (1979).WT/DS285/2
Page 7
South Carolina
S.C. C ODE ANN. §§ 16-19-10 to 16-19-160 (Law Co-op. 1996).
South Dakota
S.D. C ODIFIED LAWS §§ 22-25-1 to 22-25-51 (Michie 1976).
S.D. C ODIFIED LAWS § 22-25A-1 to 22-25A-15 (Michie 2000).
Tennessee
TENN. CONST . art. XI, § V.
TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 39-17-501 to 39-17-509 (1989).
Texas
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 47.01 to 47.10 (West 2003).
Utah
UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 76-10-1101 to 76-10-1109 (1998).
Vermont
VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 13, §§ 2133-2156 (1957).
Virginia
VA. CODE ANN. §§ 18.2-325 to 18.2-340 (Michie 1992).
Washington
WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 4.24.070 (West 1988).
WASH. REV. CODE ANN. §§ 9.46.010 to 9.46.903 (West 1998).
West Virginia
W. V A. CODE §§ 61-10-1 to 61-10-5 (1970).
Wisconsin
WIS. CONST . art.  IV, § 24.
WIS. STAT. ANN. §§ 945.01-945.13 (West 2001).
Wyoming
WYO. STAT. §§ 6-7-101 to 6-7-104 (1996).
Guam
9 GUAM CODE ANN. §§ 64.10 to  64.22A (2003).WT/DS285/2
Page 8
Puerto Rico
P.R.  LAWS ANN. tit. 33, §§ 1241 to 1259 (1949).
U.S. Virgin Islands
V.I.  CODE ANN. tit. 14, §§ 1224-1226 (1985).
V.I.  CODE ANN. tit. 32, §§ 602-646 (2001).
III. O THER UNITED STATES FEDERAL AND STATE ACTIONS OR MEASURES
Other actions or measures taken by United States Federal and State administrative agencies,
officials and judiciary which infringe on the obligations of the United States under the GATS include,
without limitation, the following:
United States
United States v. Cohen, 260 F.3d 68 (2nd Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 2587 (2002).
Florida
Florida Attorney General, Press Release: Western Union Cuts Off Sports Betting Accounts  (December
23, 1997).
Kansas
Op. Att’y Gen. No. 96-31 (March 25, 1996).
Kansas Attorney General, Internet Gambling Warning  (visited March 13, 2003)
<www.accesskansas.org/ksag/contents/consumer/internetwarning.htm>
Michigan
Michigan Gaming Control Board, Frequently Asked Questions: Is it Legal to Gamble Over the
Internet in Michigan  <www.michigan.gov/mgcb/0,1607,7-120-7863-19182--F,00.html>
Minnesota
Minnesota Attorney General, Statement of Minnesota Attorney General on Internet Jurisdiction
(visited March 13, 2003) <www.jmls.edu/cyber/docs/minn-ag.html>
New York
Vacco ex rel. People v. World Interactive Gaming Corp. , 714 N.Y.S.2d 844, 854 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1999).
New York Attorney General, Press Release: Ten Banks End Online Gambling With Credit Cards +
Spitzer Hails Establishment of New Banking Industry Standard   (11 February 2003).
New York Attorney General, Press Release: Agreement Reached with Paypal to Bar New Yorkers
from Online Gambling + Campaign Against Illegal Gambling Web Site in New York Continues  (21
August 2002).WT/DS285/2
Page 9
Attorney General of the State of New York, Internet Bureau,  In the matter of PayPal, Inc. , Assurance
of Discontinuance (16 August 2002).
New York Attorney General, Press Release: Financial Giant Joins Fight Against Online Gambling +
Leading Credit Card Issuer Agrees to Block Key Internet Transactions  (14 June 2002).
Attorney General of the State of New York, Internet Bureau,  In the matter of Citibank (South
Dakota), N.A. , Assurance of Discontinuance (21 June 2002).
__________