Home	Tutorial	Online Casino Reviews	Best Online Casinos	Casino Software	Casino News

Online Casino Gambling --- Casino News

United States Remains Firm

The United States is finally addressing the concerns the World Trade Organisation broached last month concerning the U.S.’s current legislation banning online casino gambling companies access to U.S. based internet gamblers. After Antigua filed a complaint with the WTO over the online casino legislation known as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, the WTO ruled that the U.S. was in violation of along standing agreement the U.S. had made to open its recreational services to foreign companies.

Now the U.S. is responding to the WTO with a resounding “no.” Despite the WTO’s ruling, the U.S. will not be allowing online casino gambling just because of an agreement drafted and signed over ten years ago. But now the U.S. has to think about the consequences of that announcement. If the U.S. remains in violation of that agreement, and seeks to break itself from that commitment made, then other countries affected by the anti-online casino legislation can then seek damages from the U.S. through the WTO.

Countries extremely affected by the UIGEA may do just that—Antigua and Barbuda lost millions in revenue almost over night. But then once again, the question comes down to whether or not the U.S. will honor the 10-year-old WTO agreement—and the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, John Veroneau, seems to think that there is no basis for the U.S. to pay damages to any other countries.

But Veroneau goes on to argue that the foreign countries do not deserve compensation because this agreement is ten years old, and they are taking advantage of a glitch in wording in the agreement. The way the document was intended does not allow for foreign interests in recreational services, including online casino gambling.

Veroneau asserts: "Neither the United States nor other WTO members noticed this oversight in the drafting of U.S. commitments until Antigua and Barbuda initiated a WTO case ten years later."