SBC News

Allwyn has reinforced its player safety commitment by launching its latest Player Protection Lab programme.

The project will serve as a launching pad for academics and experts in the responsible gambling field, who are looking to raise the standards of safer play through their own research projects.

Currently open for applications, successful candidates will be able to tap into grants that go up to €100,000 each, based on the scope of the proposal.

There are three criteria that applications will be judged on: digital innovation, efficiency of positive play messaging, as well as ideas for safety tools.

Nicole Garrett, Head of Responsible Gaming at Allwyn, said: “The Player Protection Lab is an exciting new avenue for Allwyn. Our responsible gaming team is seeking proposals that will encourage progress in player safety and break new ground in our industry.

“We hope that by opening the application process, we will have the opportunity to explore genuinely new ideas and draw lessons from other sectors.”

Garrett recently spoke to Ted Orme-Claye, SBC News Editor, on the iGaming Daily podcast, where she further highlighted Allwyn’s efforts to protect players.

The Head of RG explained that responsible gaming is embedded in every aspect of the business, from product design to marketing. This is further bolstered by Allwyn’s status as a European Lotteries (EL) and World Lottery Association (WLA) member.

“With responsible gambling, we’ve sometimes got a pretty hard job to do. Responsible gaming campaigns can become a wallpaper for all sorts of accusations that they are simply marketing.

That’s why we need to be more creative. We’re committed to creating more interactive RG content that isn’t just a boiler plate and actually drives engagement with players.”

Garett also delved into how Allwyn is using its cross-market focus to build a global safety standard, leveraging its in-house experts across European markets – from Greece with OPAP to Austria with Austrian Lotteries.

She promised to publicly discuss the Player Protection Lab in more detail when she attends SBC Summit Lisbon, which takes place between 16 to 19 September.

Spain’s DGOJ opens consultation on AI monitoring project with no guarantees on the timeline or testing of an ambitious gambling harms detection system.

DGOJ, the Directorate General of Gambling in Spain, has announced that it will include 60 specific behavioural and transactional variables in its AI-powered monitoring project, which aims to analyse gambling patterns and identify the triggers behind high-risk or problematic play. The system represents a landmark effort by the Spanish regulator to introduce real-time behavioural oversight across the country’s licensed online gambling operators.

The adoption of this AI-based mechanism was established as a central pillar of the Royal Decree for Safer Gambling Environments (2023), a legislative framework that tasked the DGOJ with designing technological interventions to prevent gambling harm and protect vulnerable users. Backed by Spain’s Ministry of Consumer Affairs, the project sets out to implement an AI-driven system capable of identifying early signs of risk and enabling targeted, one-to-one operator interventions.

Back in 2023, the DGOJ initially framed the initiative as a model for Europe, with the Spanish government claiming that the country would soon have the “most sophisticated gambling monitoring system of any EU member state.”

However, stakeholders voiced concerns over the project’s complexity and lack of transparency, particularly as no public information was made available throughout 2024. These concerns were partially addressed during the July 2025 Gaming in Spain Conference in Madrid, where DGOJ President Mikel Arana reassured delegates that development was ongoing.

“This remains a regulatory priority. We are building the most robust technological foundation possible — one that can serve the market long-term,” Arana said.

Public consultation on risk variables

This week, the DGOJ published its formal public consultation on the technical design of the system, inviting contributions from operators, tech providers, academics, and the public. Open until 25 September 2025, the consultation is aimed at refining the system’s parameters and assessing its technical and legal feasibility.

The model, which will be built using XGBoost (Extreme Gradient Boosting) machine learning, is set to analyse more than 60 data variables. These include the frequency and intensity of gambling sessions, changes in stakes after wins or losses, and the volume and timing of deposits and withdrawals.

The DGOJ also plans to monitor cash-out frequency, duration of play over consecutive days, and betting preferences, specifically among players engaged in live, or in-play, wagering.

Spanish authorities demand that monitoring focus on risks posed by in-play betting, due to its rapid pace and the emotionally reactive decisions it encourages. By synthesising behavioural indicators, the AI model will assign player-specific risk scores. These, in turn, will trigger alerts and enable uniform, data-led interventions by operator support teams.

Timeline uncertainty

Despite its ambition, the project’s current design has raised questions over scope and implementation timelines. The AI mechanism will only apply to the private online gambling market—covering verticals such as sports betting, casino games, poker, roulette, blackjack, and bingo — but will exclude lotteries, even though lottery products remain the most played form of gambling among Spanish adults.

This means that state monopolies like SELAE and ONCE are not subject to the same AI monitoring requirements, an omission that has drawn sharp criticism from industry commentators.

“Excluding lotteries undermines the credibility of a system that claims to monitor public health risks,” noted SBC Noticias in a recent editorial. “For a country where lottery is the most common form of gambling, it’s a glaring regulatory blind spot.”

Adding to the concern, the DGOJ has not provided a clear timeline for the AI system’s rollout. While the Royal Decree gives a two-year window for development, suggesting a potential launch by late 2025 — there is no confirmed date for beta testing, nor has the regulator clarified how risk scoring will be standardised across platforms.

Implementation may also be affected by Spain’s next general election, which must be held no later than summer 2027, adding further political uncertainty to the regulatory landscape.

Regulatory gaps persist

The AI monitoring initiative is being developed in parallel with unresolved legal challenges facing the DGOJ. In particular, Spain’s High Court has struck down several key provisions of the country’s gambling advertising code, including restrictions on celebrity endorsements and social media promotions — a decision that has yet to be addressed with an updated code of conduct.

“Without clarity on advertising and enforcement timelines, the AI project risks being another well-intentioned initiative delayed by bureaucracy,” warned SBC Noticias, calling for a more holistic approach to gambling harm prevention.

Despite these outstanding issues, the AI system reflects a serious shift toward technology-led regulatory oversight in Spain’s gambling market. If successfully implemented, it could serve as a blueprint for other EU jurisdictions exploring algorithmic models of risk detection. For now, however, the project remains in development — with its full effectiveness and independence yet to be tested.

In Germany, a warning has been issued to gambling consumers that ‘social betting platforms’ are not permitted under the laws of the Fourth Interstate Gambling Market (GlüNeuRStv).

A stern warning was issued by Glücksspielbehörde (GGL), the Federal Authority of German Gambling, in response to what it described as an influx of national media reports about an increasing number of “entertainment-type bets” placed on the outcome of the Ukraine war.

The disputed wagers reflect “event contracts” offered by prediction based trading platforms, such as Polymarket that are not licensed under the GGL’s regime.

What are event contracts?
Wagers on news and entertainment markets can be placed as ‘event contracts’, and the GGL has been forced to remind consumers that such offers are not applicable with GlüNeuRStv laws. Bans and restrictions are further applied to social betting platforms, which use tokens to wager on outcomes.

In the US, contracts are offered by companies like Polymarket and Kalshi. Players can trade them as shares that represent the likelihood of real-world event outcomes.

Such events can range from anything like political elections, economic fluctuations, sport results, and geopolitics.

Treated as a completely separate concept from betting, event contracts are overseen by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) – the regulator of derivatives markets.

Polymarket is re-entering the US market through the $112 million acquisition of QCEX, a CFTC-licensed derivatives exchange. The deal will allow Polymarket to operate under QCEX’s license and list its contracts as tradable derivatives.

However, across the pond the GGL has now put all event contracts that are not sports-related under the “illegal betting” graph.

Due to the volatility of any real-world event that is not sports-related, the GGL clarified that event contracts are not eligible for approval under the Gambling State Treaty 2021 (GlüStV 2021).

“Such formats are particularly susceptible to manipulation, as they are often based on unclear, subjective or controllable events,” the GGL said in a statement.

“The legislator has only allowed bets on defined sporting events with verifiable results and clear rules as eligible for approval.”

GGL warned that those found to be participating in or facilitating such types of bets will be viewed to be in breach of GlüStV 2021, which is punishable by law.

Illegal market remains top concern for Germany
The latest casus only goes to show how nuanced the gambling sector can be, with something completely legal in one place being scrutinised elsewhere. But the biggest threat remains in the face of the black market, and Germany has been taking significant strides against it as of late.

August marked the first month since the federal regulation of the market when the GGL released a quarterly report on the market’s size.

Composed of data sets from licensed operators on the value of cross-state bets on lottery and ‘high-risk’ games, the regulator hopes that the quarterly reports will provide a more realistic picture of player trends, therefore allowing for preemptive actions against the black market.

The black market in Germany remains a disputed topic, though, with the GGL and the German Sports Betting Association (DSWV) clashing over its size on more than one occasion.

Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), the Gambling Authority of the Netherlands, has called for ‘greater uniformity’ in the risk assessment of games offered by licensed Dutch operators.
The conclusion follows its latest investigation into how operators conduct risk analyses under the Remote Gambling Act (KOA), a regime currently under review by the Ministry of Justice.

The report reveals widespread inconsistencies in how operators conduct mandatory risk analyses, a process intended to protect players from gambling addiction and ensure responsible play. Introduced with the legalisation of the KOA Market in 2021, key risk assessments form a key part of the duty of care imposed on all licence holders.

Inconsistent Undermine KSA scrutiny
A major issue uncovered in the KSA’s study is the inconsistent nature of the risk assessments performed across the sector. The Authority identified five different methodologies in use, including well-known tools such as Asterig, Gamgard, and Neccton. Despite the widespread adoption of these tools, the outcomes vary significantly — even when applied to the same game types by different operators or even by the same external consultants.

For example, games like slot machines, poker, and virtual sports were assigned risk ratings ranging from low to very high, depending on the methodology and operator. Some licensees apply risk scores at the category level rather than evaluating each game individually, which may result in high-risk games being inappropriately classified as lower risk.

“The risk analyses do not lead to consistent results, even when conducted by the same party… The outcomes of all the conducted analyses are difficult to compare. One reason for this is that some licensees take mitigating measures into account, while others do not. This raises the question of whether licensees are correctly assessing the risk of the games they offer.” — KSA Report, p. 10

Regulatory Gaps Fuel Fragmentation
The report also points to key regulatory shortcomings that have enabled these inconsistencies. The KOA framework currently provides no clear requirements for how often risk assessments should be conducted, what level of granularity is required (game vs. category), or who is qualified to carry them out.

In practice, some analyses are performed by internal staff whose “independence or expertise cannot be guaranteed”, while others are outsourced to third parties with varying levels of transparency or scientific credibility.

In many instances there are inconsistencies on the application of player safety measures such as pop-up reminders, deposit limits, or behavioural feedback tools should be factored into risk calculations.

Difficulty in Comparing Results
Due to inconsistencies, KSA states that it is not possible to compare risk levels across operators, limiting the regulator’s ability to enforce the duty of care effectively.

At present, many licensees reduce risk scores by accounting for protective features, while others do not, leading to a patchwork of scores that are not directly comparable.

The lack of standardisation also weakens public trust and accountability, as neither players nor regulators can rely on the consistency of the risk data being reported. Without reform, the KSA warns that the current system provides little added protection for players despite being resource-intensive for operators.

Towards Uniformity
In response to the report’s findings, the KSA is working with the Ministry of Justice and Security to establish a new, standardised framework for risk analysis. This will likely include:

Mandatory per-game risk assessments

Clear definitions for when and how mitigating measures are factored in

Standardised assessment methods and scoring scales

Independent oversight to ensure objectivity and expertise

“The current system does not work effectively… while seeming to provide little additional protection for the player.” — KSA Report, p. 10

These reforms aim to strengthen player protection and ensure the risk analysis process serves its intended purpose: preventing gambling-related harm before it escalates.

KOA overhaul to end 2025
As it stands, the Dutch House of Representatives (Kamer) expects to receive a new bill by the end of 2025 that will outline proposals to overhaul the KOA regime. The agenda remains on track despite the recent resignation of State Secretary for Legal Protection, Teun Struycken, who had served as the lead architect of the reform initiative before stepping down ahead of the country’s snap election in October.

Before his departure, Struycken made it clear that the revised gambling act must place consumer protection at its core, especially for players under the age of 24. He supported the introduction of universal affordability checks, deposit limits, and stricter advertising restrictions, with a specific focus on online slots, which he described as the highest-risk vertical in the Dutch market.

The minister also argued for tailored safeguards for vulnerable groups, stating that legislation must be adapted to the real-world risks of high-intensity gambling products.