Dispute with the USA: why Antigua has become a symbol of the struggle for free internet gambling

Brief summary

In 2003, Antigua and Barbuda filed a complaint with the WTO against U.S. measures effectively blocking cross-border online gambling services. The panel and the Appellate Body acknowledged that the United States had violated its obligations under GATS (in particular, under "recreational services"), and the attempt to hide behind the "public morality" clause was inconsistent with domestic exceptions. In 2007, Antigua secured the right to "cross-countermeasures" - a temporary suspension of part of the TRIPS obligations in the amount of up to $21 million annually; in 2013, the WTO finally authorized this regime. History has turned Antigua into a symbol of a "small country championing the internet economy" against a superpower.

Background and essence of claims

Which was disputed. Antigua argued that the totality of American laws (including Wire Act, Travel Act, Illegal Gambling Business Act) prohibited the supply of gambling services from abroad, violating US obligations to access the market for GATS services.

U.S. position. Washington invoked the GATS public morality exception (Article XIV), arguing that the ban was needed to protect the public. The appellate body agreed that the goal was legitimate, but pointed out: the United States allowed inconsistency (for example, exceptions for certain intra-American forms of remote betting), which means that the protection under Art. XIV applied incorrectly.

Trial Milestones (DS285)

2003: registration of a dispute with the WTO (Antigua and Barbuda v. United States - DS285).

2004-2005: Panel/Appellate Body decisions: violation of U.S. obligations on gambling services and non-compliance with application of "morality" clause due to internal exceptions.

2006: adoption of the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) in the USA, which complicated payment channels for online gambling and the context of the execution of WTO decisions.

December 2007: The WTO arbitrator awarded Antigua the right to "cross" countermeasures: temporarily suspend the protection of US IP (TRIPS) up to $21 million per year - a rare and precedent tool. Confirmed and voiced by USTR.

January 2013: final authorization for the practical implementation of the mechanism (including the possibility of selling US content without paying royalties - within the limit).

Why it has become a symbol of "freedom of internet gambling"

1. Small country versus superpower. Precedent has shown that WTO mechanisms allow small economies to protect the export of digital services - and win.

2. Recognition of cross-border online services. The WTO has confirmed that if a country has committed to access to the service market (GATS), then the Internet channel is the same way of delivery, and it cannot be blocked arbitrarily.

3. Lesson about "public morality." Exclusion works only with sequential control; "holes" for internal operators undermine protection.

4. IP retorsion as pressure. The permission to temporarily not comply with part of TRIPS (up to $21 million/year) became a public lever of negotiations and was widely discussed by the media and the industry.

Role of UIGEA-2006

UIGEA did not create material corpus delicti for the player, but blocked payment channels (banks and processors are prohibited from conducting related transactions), which greatly reduced the availability of offshore operators for Americans. This law has complicated the enforcement of WTO decisions, increasing the conflict between international service obligations and US domestic policy.

The economics of the dispute for Antigua

Lost export of services. The departure of American traffic and the fear of banks raised costs and cut revenue for the iGaming cluster.

"Compensation through TRIPS." The WTO-authorized suspension of part of IP rights is an attempt to compensate for the damage until the United States brings the regime into compliance or offers a satisfactory settlement.

Why the case is still being studied

GATS Legal Band + Exceptions + Performance. DS285 is a classic about the balance of trade in services and the sovereign goals of the regulator.

Digital commerce and platforms. The argument shifts to disputes about online services in other verticals (streaming, fintech, platform economy).

IP sanctions as a tool. Cross-retorsia in the field of IP remains a rare but effective mechanism of pressure in the WTO.

The story of Antigua vs. USA is not just about casinos. This is a precedent about the right of a small economy to protect the export of digital services and that the policy of "total prohibition" should be logically integral and non-discriminatory. Thanks to DS285, Antigua has become a symbol of the struggle for an open cross-border Internet market - and a reminder that international rules for trade in services have teeth even in the digital age.

Main sources: WTO materials on the DS285 case and related legal comments; USTR statement 21. 12. 2007; reports of 2013 on authorized "IP-retorsia" up to $21 million/year.