SWEDEN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Stefan Widmark, Hans Eriksson and Petter Larsson, Westerberg & Partners
liability to all gambling-related payment services pro- vided to unlicensed operators. Furthermore, it intro- duces a proposed rule of presumption, under which PSPs must assume that payments made by Swed- ish residents are connected to gambling activities in Sweden. In practical terms, this would require PSPs to block gambling-related payments from Swedish cus- tomers to unlicensed operators, unless there is clear evidence that the player is located outside Sweden. It is, however, noteworthy that the proposal stops short of introducing an outright prohibition on the provision of payment services to unlicensed operators, as the effectiveness of this less restrictive approach needs to be assessed before considering stricter measures. A broadened credit prohibition The Swedish government has also presented a pro- posal to broaden the current prohibition to allow gam- bling funded by credit. Presently, operators are pro- hibited from offering credit but may still allow credit card payments from payment service providers and banks. The proposed change will in essence prohibit operators from both allowing as well as contributing to gambling funded by credit, which will effectively ban all use of credit cards. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has been met with criticism from certain industry organisations, which argue that it creates yet another regulatory burden and competitive disadvantage in relation to unlicensed operators. As with other regu- latory requirements, the fear is that a credit prohibition will drive customers to unlicensed operators that pre- sumably will continue to allow credit card payments. The prohibition will come into effect from 1 April 2026 if adopted. Supervision of B2B Operators Following the implementation of B2B licences in the summer of 2022, the first regulatory actions against B2B operators are currently being adjudicated by the administrative courts, including a first instance court judgment of fundamental importance for B2B liabil- ity. In short, the case concerns a B2B licence holder that provided gambling software to two international B2C operators lacking Swedish licences, both of which were subject to injunctions by the SGA. Inter- estingly, a geo-blockage had been implemented, and the games were thus not accessible from Sweden. In addition, the licence agreement expressly prohibited
the B2C operators from offering the games in jurisdic- tions where they did not hold the necessary licences. However, by applying a strict, verbatim application of the prohibition on providing gambling software to operators without a Swedish licence who are directing their services to Sweden, the Court somewhat surpris- ingly dismissed the relevance of the precautions taken by the B2B operator. As expected, the judgment caused strong reac- tions within the Swedish gambling industry primarily because the B2B operator had indeed geo-blocked the Swedish market. Arguably, the court’s interpre- tation of the statute makes it virtually impossible to ascertain compliance as it places the risk outside of the B2B operator’s control. The judgment has been appealed and is currently pending before the Admin- istrative Court of Appeal. While the precedential sig- nificance of the upcoming judgment may depend, at least in part, on whether the Swedish government decides to introduce an accessibility-based licensing requirement, the case nonetheless raises important issues regarding B2B liability that could prove funda- mental for operators active in relation to the Swedish market. Responsible Gambling – A Continuing Focal Point Landmark judgment from the Supreme Court on civil RG liability In June 2025, the Supreme Court rendered its first precedent on operator liability for net losses of previ- ous customers with gambling problems. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the player, and the operator was ordered to reimburse his net losses (approximate- ly EUR530,000) attributable to a certain VIP customer period. In summary, the case concerned a former customer who was given VIP status due to his high-volume gambling. Throughout the VIP period, the customer was repeatedly targeted with tailored bonus offer- ings and individualised marketing, including bonus offers and gifts, despite showing signs of excessive gambling. The court held that the operator, by way of its access to and usage of the customer’s gambling data, was aware of his excessive gambling issues. Considering that the individualised marketing was considered intrusive and concerned high-risk games
499 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook