Recently, the WTO Panel in charge of the softwood lumber case brought by Canada against the United States ruled in favor of Canada. The "benefit conferred" criterion played a critical role in the ruling, which concluded that the United States used a flawed cross-border methodology to demonstrate the existence of such a benefit. However, the Canadian victory would have been more decisive if the WTO panel had found the absence of a governmental financial contribution. The cross-border methodology will be once again at the heart of the pending second lumber case before the WTO. This article evaluates the prospects for the case in this context.