SBC News

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.