The United States has until April 2006 to comply with a ruling about US restrictions on cross-border gaming on the Internet, the World Trade Organisation announced.

In an arbitration decision, the global trade referee set the "reasonable period of time" for Washington to adapt its legislation in line with the ruling, which was issued in April this year after the tiny Caribbean state of Antigua and Barbuda brought the US before the 148-nation WTO.

"The United States has already announced its intention to comply with the WTO findings," said Neena Moorjani, a spokeswoman for the US Trade Representative, in a statement.

"In order to implement the findings, all we need to do is clarify one narrow issue concerning Internet gambling on horse racing."

"This does not involve weakening US restrictions on internet gambling," she added.

Antigua argued in the complaint it launched in March 2003 that US prohibitions were harming its online gaming business, which is aimed at reducing the island's economic dependence on tourism.

Antigua, with a population of about 68,000, is a centre for offshore Internet gaming operations, attracting large numbers of US residents to its virtual casino-style games and betting services.

US officials contended Internet gambling is illegal if it involves activity on US soil, and have vowed to prosecute those involved in the practice.

Both sides claimed victory in the dispute.
In its ruling, the WTO accepted that prohibitions in some US states on cross-border gaming were valid and agreed with Washington's argument that some federal laws could "protect public morals or maintain public order".

However, the appeals panel ruled that the United States had not been able to show that US laws on horse-racing bets were applied equitably to foreign and domestic online betting suppliers, a key condition of global trade rules.

Antigua has said it expects changes in US rules to unlock opportunities to advertise online gaming products on US Internet sites or media without the threat of legal action by authorities.

The United States maintains that it does not accept Antigua's proposed distinction between "sports" and "non-sports" gaming and betting. It contends that no such distinction exists under any of the three federal statutes at issue in this dispute, namely the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA).

The US disputes that an executive order could be used in the manner suggested by Antigua, because an executive order may not contradict an existing statute. It believes that it is extremely unlikely that an executive order could achieve the necessary clarification of the relationship between the Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA), on the one hand, and the Wire Act, Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act on the other hand. The US is pointing to a presidential statement which expressed the view that nothing in the Interstate Horseracing Act overrode previously enacted criminal laws. It contends that if a presidential statement accompanying signature of a bill could not achieve the requisite clarity in the relationship between the relevant statutes, then a presidential executive order could not do so either. It says it will use legislative means to clarify the relationship between the Interstate Horseracing Act and the three pre-existing federal criminal statutes.

With regard to what Antigua regards as the supply of "non-sports related and horseracing" gambling and betting services, Antigua argues that the United States can, and should implement the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) through the issuance of an executive order by the president of the United States that would clarify that the supply of such services from Antigua is not prohibited under the Wire Act, the Travel Act or the IGBA.
As regards the supply of "other sports-related" gambling and betting services, Antigua accepts that legislative change will be neccessary in order to clarify whether and how the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the IGBA apply to these activities.

Antigua specifically argues that it is well within the power of the president to issue an executive order to agencies of the United States government to the effect that these services may be lawfully offered by Antiguan operators to consumers in the United States.

Trousers in Denim

Cream of the 'Crop'

Cheeky's World