SWEDEN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Stefan Widmark, Hans Eriksson and Petter Larsson, Westerberg & Partners
targeted at an exposed, vulnerable customer, all bets placed were considered null and void under contract law. Consequently, his full net losses attributable to the VIP period had to be reimbursed. It is somewhat premature to anticipate what con- sequences the judgment will ultimately have on the Swedish gambling market, but operators fear a worst- case scenario in that it could spark litigious trends like those in, for example, Germany and Austria. Presum- ably, the hesitancy among former players to file sub- sequent actions could be explained by the fact that the Supreme Court case concerned gambling prior to the re-regulation of the Swedish gambling market when no statutory RG requirements applied in Swe- den which makes the precedent somewhat difficult to apply to customer relations post-2019. Nonetheless, the judgment arguably contains principles that carry authoritative weight even for gambling conducted after that point, and it is unsurprising that claims filed following the Supreme Court’s decision rely heavily on its conclusions. Notably, a parallel action based on RG liability con- cerning recovery of post-2019 net losses, which was stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings, is expected to be adjudicated by the Svea Court of Appeal in early 2026. Considering the momentum of the player-friendly Supreme Court judg- ment and the additional regulatory RG burden imple- mented as of 2019, a judgment in favour of the cus- tomer currently appears the most likely outcome. If the Court of Appeal were to rule in favour of the player in that case as well, Swedish courts can be expected to experience a significant rise in the number of claims brought against gambling operators in the near future. Regulatory RG proceedings On the regulatory side, the SGA has been highly active in its enforcement of the RG requirements in recent years. In general, the identified RG violations mainly concern insufficient monitoring of gambling patterns, and missing, late, or unsuccessful protective and miti- gating RG measures. The supervision has led to high fines, which have mainly been upheld or lowered by the administrative courts on appeal.
However, in the spring of 2025 the Administrative Court of Linköping rendered a highly interesting judg- ment in a high-profile case concerning the “duty of care requirement” against the state-owned operator Svenska Spel. In essence, the duty of care require- ment requires operators to take proper measures in relation to their customers to limit the negative con- sequences of gambling. The Court held that the general, vague nature of the duty of care provision in the Gambling Act, and the lack of authoritative case law entailed that assess- ment of compliance thereof must be considered with caution. Accordingly, administrative sanctions – which comprise elements of criminal law – due to violations of the duty of care obligation should be reserved for severe cases – eg, when no or highly limited mitigating measures have been taken, or when no deposit limits have been required, etc. Considering that Svenska Spel had indeed taken some RG measures in relation to the customer cases examined, the Court revoked the SGA sanction decision and the SEK100 million fine issued by the SGA. The Administrative Court’s judgment, which has been appealed, is startling in the sense that it essentially disqualifies the duty of care requirement due to its vague nature. The judgment can be seen as a rebuke to several actors: the legislature, for failing to provide sufficient guidance on how the duty should be applied in the legislative bill; the SGA, for not issuing specific regulations clarifying the duty of care; and arguably the Court of Appeal, for not further developing the requirement through its case law. Irrespective of the outcome, but particularly if the judgment is upheld on appeal, the SGA should rea- sonably take action and issue detailed regulations on the duty of care requirement. If the SGA remains pas- sive, the matter will ultimately fall to the legislature to address – otherwise, there is a risk that the duty of care will become little more than a paper tiger. The SGA has indicated that the supervision of RG issues will remain one of its focus areas and more supervisory actions are thus likely to follow even though the legal position is presently highly uncertain
500 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook