UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY OF GAMBLING AND BETTING SERVICES
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Antigua and Barbuda
Date: 13 June 2003
Document codes: WT/DS285/R; WT/DS285/2
Complainant: Antigua and Barbuda
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Canada, Taiwan, EU, Japan, Mexico, China
Dispute stage: Implementation & Compliance
Agreements cited: Art. VI, VIII, XVI, XVII, XI  Services (GATS)

ANNEX D

REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
BY ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

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 Dis pute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to
Article 6.2 of the DSU.

 The Government of Antigua and Barbuda consid ers 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 Ag reement on Trade in Services (GATS) with
respect to the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services.

 The rules applying to the cross-border suppl y of gambling and betting services in the United
States are complex and comprise a mixture of state a nd federal law. The rele vant laws are listed in
Sections I and II of the Annex attached to this reque st. Although this is not always clear on the face
of the text of these laws, relevant United States aut horities take the view that these laws (separately or
in combination) have the effect of prohibiti ng all supply of gambling and betting services from
outside the United States to consumers in the United States. Section III of the Annex lists examples
of measures by non-legislative authorities of the Un ited States applying these laws to the cross-border
supply of gambling and betting services. The measures listed in the Annex only come within the
scope of this dispute to the extent that these me asures prevent or can prevent operators from Antigua
and Barbuda from lawfully offering gambling and betting services in the United States under
conditions 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' ob ligations 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 opera tors, however, to obtain an authorization
to supply gambling and betting services from outside the United States. This appears
to conflict with the United States' co mmitments 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 restri ct international transfers and payments
relating to gambling and betting services o ffered from outside the United States.
Some of the non-legislative measures listed in Section III of the Annex are examples
thereof: the measures described in the doc uments 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) a nd 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 consulta tions 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.

ANNEX

I. U NITED STATES FEDERAL LEGISLATION

The measures taken by the United States Congr ess 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 1307
18 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

A
RIZ. 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. & PROF. 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).

Connecticut

C
ONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 53-278a to 53-278g (2001).

Delaware

D
EL CONST. art. 2, §17.
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, §§ 1401-32, 1470-73 (2002).

District of Columbia

D.C. CODE ANN. §§ 22-1701 to 22-1712 (2001).

Florida

F
LA. 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

I
ND. 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

K
Y. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 528.010 to 528.120 (Baldwin’s 1974).

Louisiana

L
A. CONST. art. XII, § 6.

Maine

M
E. REV. STAT. ANN., tit. 17, §§ 330-347 (1983).
ME. REV. STAT. ANN., tit. 17, §§ 2305-2306 (1983).

Maryland

M
D. CODE ANN., CRIM. LAW, §§12-101 to 12-307 (2002).

Massachusetts

MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 271, §§ 1-50 (West 2000).

Michigan

M
ICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. §§ 750.301-750.315a (West 1990).

Minnesota

MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 609.75-609.763 (Supp. 2003).

Mississippi

M
ISS. 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. REV. STAT. ANN. § 647:2 (1999).

New Jersey

N.J. CONST. art. IV, § 7.
N. J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2A:40-1 to 2A:40-9 (2000).
N. J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2C:37-1 to 2C:37-9 (1995).
N. J. STAT. ANN. § 5:5-63 (1996).
N. J. STAT. ANN. §§ 5:12-1 to 5:12-210 (1996).

New Mexico

N.M.
 STAT. ANN. §§ 30-19-1 to 30-19-15 (1978).

New York

N.Y.
 CONST. art. I, §9.
N.Y. EXECUTIVE LAW §§ 430-439a (McKinney 1996).
N.Y. PENAL LAW §§ 225.00-225.40 (McKinney 1999).
N.Y. GENERAL OBLIGATION LAW §§ 5-401 to 5-423 (McKinney 2001).

North Carolina

N. C. GEN. STAT. §§ 14-289 to 14-309.4 (1994).

North Dakota

N.D. CONST. art. 11, § 25.
N.D. CENT. CODE § 12.1-28-01 to 12.1-28-02 (1987).

Ohio

O
HIO CONST. art. XV, § 6.
OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 2915.01-2915.06 (1996).

Oklahoma

O
KLA. 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. GEN. LAWS §§ 11-19-1 to 11-19-45 (1993).
R. I. GEN. LAWS § 11-51-1 to 11-51-2 (1979).

South Carolina

S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 16-19-10 to 16-19-160 (Law Co-op. 1996).

South Dakota

S.D.
 CODIFIED LAWS §§ 22-25-1 to 22-25-51 (Michie 1976).

S.D.
 CODIFIED 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

V
T. STAT. ANN. tit. 13, §§ 2133-2156 (1957).

Virginia

V
A. 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. VA. CODE §§ 61-10-1 to 61-10-5 (1970).

Wisconsin

W
IS. 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).

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 Stat es 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 (2
nd 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).

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).