Steve Hoare

UK enforcement action casts shade over Unibet’s net zero goals

Steve Hoare0187 views

The operator of FDJ United’s Unibet brand in the UK has been charged by the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) for social responsibility and AML licensing failures.

Platinum Gaming has received a warning, needs to pay the Commission £10m, and will have to undergo a third party audit to ensure it meets policies, procedures and controls.

Penalties and enforcement actions rarely reflect well on the companies involved, but this may be particularly bad PR for Unibet, which maintains its targets of one day achieving 0% revenue from gambling harm.

This is also the second time the London-headquartered firm, which operates FDJ’s Unibet under a white label deal as well as the bingo and online casino site UK.Bingo.com, has been hit with a regulator penalty.

The UKGC charged the firm £2.9m back in 2023, also for social responsibility and AML failures. 2022 and 2023 were particularly active years for the Commission with countless fines issued ranging from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of British pounds.

Various operators received penalties for similar infractions during this time, with records broken via penalties against Entain and William Hill. The regulator itself has noted a slowdown in breaches in 2025, however.

“While industry wide progress has been made in reducing unchecked high spending, the failings at Platinum Gaming are particularly disappointing,” said John Pierce, Commission Director of Enforcement

“The case revealed serious shortcomings in customer interaction systems, including failures to identify and act on clear markers of harm.”

What not to do
The incidents at Platinum will be familiar to many. The Commission found cases of Unibet and/or Bingo.com customers losing ‘thousands within hours or days of registration’ without intervention, according to Pierce.

Specific examples highlighted included the customer interaction system failing to identify a player who lost £5,000 within 24 hours of registration as being at risk of harm. Another customer was not interacted with despite losing £31,000 within nine months.

On AML, the Commission determined that Platinum Gaming’s money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessment did not factor in accounts closed due to AML or counter-terrorist financing (CTF) concerns prior to 2023.

The regulator further asserted that Platinum Gaming’s AML policy lacked clarity around customer due diligence and did not consider high risk occupations, high levels of transactions and high loss levels.

“Customer reviews did not consistently consider high-risk factors, despite these being outlined in the licensee’s own framework,” said Pierce.

Not great for Net Zero
Unibet launched its 0% mission back in 2021. At the time it was part of the Kindred Group – itself having previously been called the Unibet group – alongside the 32Red online casino brand.

Both became part of French state-owned betting group La Française des Jeux (FDJ) in October 2024 when the French National Lottery operator bought Stockholm-based Kindred for €2.45bn (£2.06bn/$2.70bn). FDJ subsequently rebranded itself as FDJ United.

The net zero campaign saw Kindred and its brands commit to achieving 0% of its revenue from harmful gambling. Kindred gave quarterly updates on its net zero progress with the figure routinely hovering around 3%, though it did fall below this for the first time in Q3 2024.

Post-FDJ acquisition, Unibet and 32Red’s new owner has incorporated the net zero campaign into its own responsible gaming strategy. A regulatory penalty issued to the firm’s UK operator is not exactly a good look for this, however.

The penalty also comes at a time when FDJ United’s expansion into international betting via the Kindred takeover continues to hit hurdles, with the firm struggling to find revenue growth in Q3 while also feeling its bottom line bit by tax hikes in France and elsewhere.

Read more

BOS study signals clear channelisation liabilities of Swedish Gambling 

Steve Hoare0190 views

Publishing a comparative study between Sweden and Denmark, trade body outlines clear liabilities of why a restrictive gambling regime is undermining online channelisation for online casino. As such, Swedish ministers must recognise mistakes and implement new policies and balanced protections in 2026.

The Riksdag has received the recommendations and insights on how to strengthen the channelisation rates of Sweden’s online gambling market, in the interest of maximising consumer protection.

A comparative study has been published by BOS, the Swedish Trade Association for Online Gambling, providing contrasts and comparisons with the neighbouring regime of Denmark.

The study, undertaken by independent law firm Nordic Legal, identifies why Sweden has failed to meet its 90% channelisation target — a principal objective of the 2019 re-regulation of gambling under the new regulatory framework of the Gambling Act (2018).

Audiences are reminded that neither Sweden nor Denmark are immune to offshore competition — a factor becoming increasingly opaque to consumers due to the recent rise of crypto casinos and skin betting websites targeting both nations regimes.

No hiding from data
Yet, on a comparative basis, the study finds that Denmark maintains higher overall channelisation due to more flexible controls and proportionate restrictions on online casinos, thereby supporting its regulatory strategy.

The study refers to two sources examining Swedish and Danish online casino trends. According to H2 Gambling Capital, both countries report an overall channelisation rate of 72%.

However, when broken down by segment, Sweden shows a lower channelisation rate in online casino (62%) compared to Denmark (70%), while Sweden outperforms Denmark in betting (83% vs 74%).

In contrast, an ATG Web Traffic Study reveals a more pronounced difference. It estimates Sweden’s overall channelisation at 68%, with only 57% for online casino and 77% for betting. Meanwhile, Denmark’s combined online casino and betting channelisation is significantly higher, ranging between 90% and 95%.

Sweden’s visible liabilities
Liabilities in online casino operations are particularly evident in the areas of product scope and advertising regulations. In Sweden, the narrow interpretation of permissible games — combined with the absence of a formal pre-approval mechanism — exposes operators to considerable compliance risks.

“New games must fall within the definitions of existing categories (casino, betting, etc.), which are subject to narrow interpretations. The Swedish Gambling Authority (SGA) offers limited formal guidance, and there is no pre-approval system to confirm that a new product is compliant before launch.”

This creates a risk-averse environment where operators may avoid innovation altogether for fear of regulatory sanction. By comparison, Denmark uses a defined positive list, offering greater regulatory clarity on permitted games. However, flexibility remains limited, as the process for adding new game formats such as crash games is slow and bureaucratic.

“While Denmark’s approach is more predictable, it remains inflexible for approving new formats… innovation is still restricted by the rigidity of the permitted list.”

A further liability for operators in Sweden lies in its strict regulation of advertising and customer bonuses. Swedish law permits only a one-time welcome bonus, while ongoing incentives and loyalty rewards are strictly prohibited.

“The prohibition on ongoing bonuses means that licensed operators have far fewer tools to compete for player loyalty compared with unlicensed operators, who face no such constraints.”

This has placed licensed operators at a clear commercial disadvantage, particularly in the online casino segment, where consumer engagement and promotional flexibility are essential.

“Operators reported that the one-bonus rule puts them in an impossible position: the retention of customers is hindered, while the unlicensed market freely uses aggressive and continuous promotions.”

In contrast, Denmark permits both acquisition and retention bonuses under a structured framework, including caps and transparency requirements, allowing licensed operators to compete more effectively without compromising responsible gambling standards.

These differences not only affect business viability but also undermine consumer protection. Licensed Swedish operators are unable to effectively retain players, pushing users toward offshore sites that are unregulated, riskier, and untaxed, contributing directly to the country’s lagging channelisation rates in the online casino vertical.

Easy channelisation fixes
The headline recommendation for improving channelisation urges the Swedish government to repeal the current restrictions on customer bonuses and introduce a new framework for customer incentives and engagement.

To this end, BOS recommends that Swedish authorities collaborate more closely with licensed operators to broaden the scope and interpretation of permissible online casino features and functionalities.

BOS also supports the expansion of enforcement powers for Spelinspektionen, Sweden’s gambling regulator, particularly in enabling direct blocking measures against black market operators. However, for these powers to be effective, the Inspectorate must be adequately resourced and introduce a formal pre-approval process for new products.

Licensed operators should be empowered to play a greater role in consumer protection through enhanced regulatory guidance and open dialogue. Importantly, they must be informed of current channelisation rates as part of regulatory conditions, ensuring transparency and shared responsibility in maintaining a well-functioning gambling market.

BOS has also expressed support for the regulatory reforms proposed by Consumer Affairs Commissioner Marcus Isgren, particularly those aimed at broadening the scope and interpretation of the Swedish Gambling Act to improve competitiveness and regulatory clarity.

However, the trade body has firmly rejected the 81 smart proposals submitted by Svenska Spel CEO Anna Johnson, criticising them as overly restrictive and damaging to competition in the games of chance sector. BOS argues that the proposals would entrench monopoly-like conditions and hinder innovation within the licensed market.

Gustaf Hoffstedt: BOS
“We hope that the report will be a useful tool and encourage Sweden to find inspiration in several of the measures and approaches that have been so successfully implemented in Denmark. Some of them are strictly rule-based, such as how loyalty programmes are regulated. Some are more difficult to approach and of a cultural nature — but just as important — and are connected to the policymaker’s attitude towards the industry it is supervising,” said Gustaf Hoffstedt, Secretary General of BOS.

“Hopefully, this report can inspire policymakers in Sweden to choose the path of regulation that strengthens the licensed gambling market and, as a consequence, strengthens consumer protection — as neighbouring Denmark has successfully proven is possible,” Hoffstedt concludes.

2026: Year of Reckoning
Swedish gambling licensees have been advised to prepare for a transformative 2026, as the government prepares to implement a comprehensive ban on all credit-related transactions from April.

Spelinspektionen has also been granted expanded powers to strengthen enforcement and increase penalties for non-compliance and failures relating to duty of care.

As it stands, the Swedish Riksdag is expected to vote by the end of the year on a series of amendments to the Gambling Act. These include new definitions of unlicensed gambling activity, promotional restrictions, marketing rules, and customer engagement standards.

BOS has not yet received confirmation on whether the government will incorporate any of its key recommendations, as Sweden continues its ongoing and evolving review of national gambling legislation.

Read more

Newsletter: The goal is shared, the rulebook differs

Steve Hoare0202 views

Stop, collaborate and listen SBC Media has published the first part of its International Player Safety Index today with partner 1xBet making a call for communication, clarity and consistency. The report is the first part of a series, with this one interviewing operators and regulators in Western Europe. It found: Something’s gotta give: Perhaps the most…

Read more

iGaming Daily: Too Much Exposure? Football’s Gambling Ad Dilemma and Brazil’s Betting Tax Twist

Steve Hoare0214 views

In today’s episode of iGaming Daily, SBC Media Manager Charlie Horner is joined by SBC News Editor Ted Orme-Claye and Business Journalist Christian Lee to unpack the ongoing debate around gambling advertising, particularly in football, following new research from the University of Bristol highlighting the scale of betting exposure during matches. Stay tuned until the…

Read more

Slovakia reshuffles Gambling Office leadership for second time in 2025

Steve Hoare0199 views

The Republic of Slovakia has reorganised the leadership ranks of the Office for the Regulation of Gambling (ÚRHH) for the second time this year.

The Ministry of Finance confirmed that Libuša Baranová has been appointed Director General of the gambling authority, following a decision by Finance Minister Ladislav Kamenický.

The change sees Jana Mravíková, who had led the ÚRHH since April, move to the position of Director of the Department of Economics and Operations, effective 1 October 2025.

Mravíková had assumed the top post earlier this year after the departure of Martin Bohoš, who had served as Director General since 2019.

Upon leaving office, Bohoš had called for a full review of Gambling Act of Slovakia, warning that the framework was failing to keep pace with rapid growth of online casino and insufficient consumer safeguards.

The latest leadership change arrives amid mounting political pressure to overhaul gambling governance in Slovakia. The Sports and Tourism Minister, Rudolf Huliak, has tabled a new set of amendments designed to deepen the social responsibility and duties of gambling operators towards Slovak consumers and sports funding.

Huliak has repeatedly argued that Slovakia must “regulate, not promote gambling“, emphasising greater protection for vulnerable players and stricter enforcement against illegal operators.

Elsewhere, opposition parties from the Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) have demanded that the Ministry of Finance conduct a tax audit into the gambling sector. The party questions why national wagers have increased sharply, yet tax receipts remain stagnant at €340m.

KDH leaders have accused the ministry of neglecting oversight duties while regulated operators continue to benefit from low transparency and inconsistent enforcement.

Of significance, a series of reports by the Supreme Audit Office and the Institute for the Regulation of Gambling (IPRHH) have highlighted that regulatory shortcomings must be addressed, with Slovakia’s current system described as fragmented, under-resourced, and outdated.

As Baranová takes charge, industry observers expect the new leadership to focus on restoring public confidence, strengthening consumer protections, and ensuring that gambling taxation and regulatory practices are aligned with Slovakia’s broader fiscal and social policy goals.

Read more

Interview: 1xBet calls for communication, clarity and consistency from regulators

Steve Hoare0195 views

As regulated markets become more ubiquitous across the globe, there has been an increased focus on player protection measures. Operators are under more and more pressure to put all guardrails in place to ensure players don’t fall into problematic patterns.

But that is a challenge becoming increasingly difficult without effective and constructive dialogue with regulators, according to 1xBet’s Strategic Advisor, Simon Westbury.

Westbury, speaking exclusively to SBC News at SBC Summit 2025, warned that without open dialogue operators cannot possibly have the clarity or consistency to properly protect players.

He spoke as 1xBet collaborated with SBC Media on a research report on player protection in Western European markets.

“I think what we saw was regulators were viewed more like enforcement agents rather than people you could have a conversation with,” he said. “I’m talking about the three Cs. It was clear that we needed more communication between regulators and operators. Operators are asking for more clarity and also consistency.”

Confusion and uncertainty in western Europe
Some of the findings in the report include that 60% of operators marked the regulation in their primary jurisdiction as seven out of 10, with 43% saying they were unsatisfied, and 26% adding they were worried about the clarity of the information they had.

Some anecdotal data included that some UK operators are nervous to engage with the UKGC, because they didn’t want to look stupid, and Swedish operators looking at how enforcement was done in court cases to understand how the regulations should be applied.

Image: Simon Westbury/1xBet
“I think it’s slightly concerning,” Westbury added. “If we’re the standard bearer in Western Europe for player protection, then we’ve got a lot of work to do.”

Further stats within the body of research included that 30% of respondents said they apply the most stringent regulation if they’re multi-jurisdictional.

Westbury said that this simply isn’t conducive to being a global gambling operator.

“Now that’s mental,” he exclaimed. “In terms of personalisation and localisation for players, you have to suit people individually. Someone in Spain is different from someone in France.”

One consistent theme that Westbury identified was that there are clearly improvements required in operators’ dealings with regulators in most western European markets.

He explained: “I think it’s clear that everyone’s working towards the same goal on player protection, but there’s different rulebooks and different standards.

“Operators are confused and I don’t want to be too critical of regulators, but you can’t have an operator in a highly regulated market scared to engage with the regulator. That doesn’t make any sense to me.”

Who takes responsibility for responsible gambling?
In some quarters, particularly throughout media reports and political lobbies, there are accusations that the gambling industry doesn’t do enough on player protection leaving certain segments of consumers vulnerable to the risks of problem gambling.

When SBC News put the question to Westbury, he didn’t outright refute the claims, but noted that operators cannot be solely responsible for any harm.

“I think sometimes there’s a facade that we’re trying to do enough, but this report actually shows quite clearly there’s some challenges,” he said. “Maybe that isn’t a facade. Maybe we are trying to do everything we can.

“But when you read a regulation that’s written in beautiful legal language and you engage with a regulatory body and they just send you back the guidance, it’s not really helpful. You have to understand these guys are civil servants; they are enacting the regulation, but if it’s not clear, how can you enact it?

“That’s the challenge. It’s not that we’re not doing enough. I think at times we’re trying and failing, but I’m not going to put that on anyone’s responsibility.”

So if there is no responsibility for some of the failings, who should take responsibility for player protection. While a nuanced discussion, Westbury did outline that players cannot be held responsible for addictive personality, whether that is for gambling or alcohol or any other addictive behaviour.

He added that certain regulator actions mean that in certain circumstances they must bear the brunt.

For example, in Spain – one jurisdiction in which 1xBet is licensed – the DGOJ regulator is introducing an algorithm to act as a standardised form of risk detection for problem gambling.

He said: “I think this is why this algorithm that they’ve developed in Spain is going to be very interesting, because the onus really isn’t on the operator, it’s on the regulatory body to develop that algorithm and make that algorithm effective. If the operator has that algorithm and the algorithm doesn’t work, it’s not on the operator. It’s not our algorithm.”

Ultimately, though, Westbury did note that operators must take the majority of the responsibility, adding: “The onus has to be on the operator but the problem is when you put the onus on the operator and the regulations aren’t clear, there becomes a grey area which can be exploited, positively or negatively.”

Measuring responsible gambling efficacy
The conversation turned towards best practices for responsible gambling and while tools like deposit limits and interventions are commonplace, 1xBet’s advisor noted that dialogue between all stakeholders can help improve things even more.

That is why 1xBet decided to publish research – to begin a wider conversation around player protection in western European jurisdictions, often touted as some of the leading lights for responsible gambling measures.

Westbury noted: “We are a global company, but we have to have local specificity and that varies from market to market, because our edges are different, and also the regulations are different. We’re not asking for uniform regulations, but we just need more dialogue.

“I don’t think there is a best standard at the moment. I think this report shows that, and I think that this isn’t a one off that we’re doing.”

Finding best practices also include identifying the measures that are most effective in the player protection sector. But how can the industry actually measure this?

Westbury acknowledged that this can be a difficult task, but he pointed out that ensuring that keeping players in regulated markets can be a good barometer and this is driving 1xBet’s interest in acquiring licences around the world.

“The effectiveness is in identifying problem gamblers at the earliest stage so that nothing gets out of control,” he said. “How successful we are is pretty indeterminable to understand, because if you stop one and you find one problem gambler, that’s a result.

“It’s like everything, you can’t stop everyone and people in this day and age always find a way. That’s where we really need to work as an industry, because the black markets are growing in all countries and when the player goes there, they lose all aspects of protection.”

1xBet’s report into player protection in Western European markets is the first of a series of reports that the operator is producing on player protection in different regions. The company is looking to further its commitment to player protection and hopes that by producing research, it can provide valuable input into the conversation.

“You’re never going to make regulation and player protection sexy, but I think this report is interesting,” he said. “I’m looking forward to our other regional reports because the findings are going to guide where we go as an industry, and actually they give us a platform to elevate our performance as operators and regulators.”

You can download the International Player Safety Index by heading here.

Read more

iGaming Daily: Sweden Divided and Distracted on Gambling Policies

Steve Hoare0208 views

In today’s episode of iGaming Daily, SBC Media Manager Charlie Horner is joined by Editor-at-Large Ted Menmuir and SBC News Editor Ted Orme-Claye as the trio unpack Sweden’s latest efforts to strengthen enforcement against the black market. Tune in to todays episode to find out: Host: Charlie HornerGuests: Ted Menmuir & Ted Orme-ClayeProducer: Anaya McDonaldEditor: …

Read more