The latest case law of the Court of Justice on cross-border gambling perpetuates the status quo, which precludes any mutual recognition and allows Member States to maintain dejure or de facto state monopolies on public interest grounds. However, the Court's deferential approach and its interpretation of the red lines drawn on the Member States' discretion are not devoid of inconsistencies or inherent contradiction. The Court is not always keen to declare incompatible with the Treaty any measures that manifestly exceed the boundaries of national discretion and, overall, remains reluctant to apply a rigorous proportionality test to national regulation of gambling. As regards the requirement that such regulation consistently serves the public interest, the Court seems to adopt a broadly construed consistency test and a relatively lax approach to a sectoral evaluation of the consistency of national policy concerning the concrete games offered by a state monopoly. This contrasts with its more rigorous approach to an overall assessment of the consistency of national gambling policy, including games that are excluded from a state monopoly. © 2011 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited and Contributors.