Spelinspektionen, the Swedish gambling authority, has reached a verdict on its investigation into the reporting obligations compliance of three operators.
Last month, the regulator stated that it would be investigating AB Trotting and Galloping, Svenska Spel Sport & Casino AB and Lotto Direct Limited for compliance with their reporting obligations according to Chapter 11, section three of the country’s Gambling Act.
This section requires all licensees to report any changes in relation to an application or registration under section two to Spelinspektionen as soon as they are aware that changes have taken place.
However, following an investigation, the regulator has discovered that it does not need to take any additional steps, and the case can be concluded.
Spelinspektionen said in a statement: “Nothing has emerged from the inspection that warrants further action. In light of this, the cases have been closed.”
Although things have concluded between the regulator and two of the operators listed above, there is still an ongoing legal battle between Spelinspektionen and Svenska Spel.
Duty of care
In June, Svenska Spel Sport & Casino AB successfully challenged a SEK 100m penalty fee (approximately £7.7m) from Spelinspektionen for duty of care failures.
The operator was issued a warning and a penalty fee by the Swedish authority following an audit in 2021, in which the authority stated that the operator had not fulfilled its obligations under Chapter 14, Section 1 of the Gambling Act, specifically the duty of care supervision.
Spelinspektionen said that between 17 October and 17 December 2021, Svenska Spel didn’t work actively or proactively enough to protect ten customers who demonstrated potential gambling harm, issuing a warning and a SEK 100m penalty fee.
Across the courts
However, in its appeal, Svenska Spel said it did meet the requirements of Chapter 14, Section 1 of the Gambling Act, monitoring customers’ gambling behaviour continuously and taking action when necessary to assist players in reducing their gambling.
The operator added that its own measures should “be considered sufficient when examining whether there were grounds for intervention”, as the constitution doesn’t state which measures should be taken and when.
Sweden’s Administrative Court in Linköping sided with the operator, noting that it did not agree with Spelinspektionen’s assessment based on the “legality principle”, which states that an authority may only take measures that are supported by the legal order and that it must be “sufficiently clear” what individuals must do to avoid a penalty.
Spelinspektionen has appealed the Administrative Court’s verdict to the Court of Appeal in Jönköping, arguing that the former court’s decision is in conflict with previous court decisions and the authority’s scope of the duty of care assessment.
While the legal battle continues, Svenska Spel has already called for “greater clarity” regarding the interpretation of the duty of care under Chapter 14, Section 1 of the Gambling Act.
