Remote Gambling Association files complaint with EU against the US over gambling restrictions
Related Articles
The battle between international online gambling companies and the United States Federal Government entered a new venue today when industry lobbying group Remote Gambling Association (RGA) filed a formal complaint against the US Government with the EU.
According to its website, the RGA “represents most of the world’s largest, licensed, and stock market-listed remote gambling companies and provides the industry with a single voice on all the issues of importance to regulators, legislators, and key decision makers around the world.”
The complaint was filed under an EU Trade Barriers Regulation provision that allows any company based in the EU to bring forward charges of trade obstruction against another country. The complaint focuses on the familiar refrain that the US allows some domestic operators to engage in online gaming operations, but prohibits foreign businesses from entering into the same market.
Excerpt from a press release announcing the complaint:
The filing of the complaint by the Remote Gambling Association opens another front in a growing global trade battle over the discriminatory practices of the US toward online gambling. On Monday, the European Union and several other countries – including Japan, Canada, and Australia – agreed to accept compensation after the US announced earlier this year that it intended to withdraw from its WTO commitments to open its US$100 billion US gambling services market to international competition. That announcement followed the finding by the WTO that the US had violated these commitments in a separate case brought successfully by Antigua and Barbuda. While Monday’s agreement purports to offer compensation for the withdrawal of market access by the US, it does not address discriminatory and protectionist US practices against European and other foreign online operators in the form of selective prosecution related to trade in gambling services that took place before the withdrawal of the commitment. This is due to the fact that the withdrawal of the commitment, if and when it enters into force, only has effect for the future.
