The first significant GATT case regarding the principle of trade discrimination was ‘Belgian Family Allowances,’ a complaint by Denmark and Norway against Belgium. This 1952 decision expounding the meaning of the unconditional ‘most-favoured-nation’ principle is often cited for the proposition that origin-based conditions are inconsistent with that core principle. This article reconsiders ‘Family Allowances’ through the window of Professor Hudec's classic case study written in 1975. In particular, the article considers whether the panel and Professor Hudec correctly interpreted the term ‘unconditionally,’ in light of the pre-1947 international trade law practices. In addition, the article explores the status of ‘Family Allowances’ as the first GATT case holding that a governmental social program violated trade rules. Although Belgium did not invoke GATT Article XX as a defense, this paper assesses how current WTO jurisprudence would be applied to the facts in ‘Family Allowances,’ and concludes that Belgium would still lose the case.