The Administrative Court in Linköping has overturned a fine imposed in March 2025 by the Swedish Gambling Authority (Spelinspektionen) on the online operator LeoVegas, known locally as Roar Vegas. The fine, amounting to SEK8 million ($852,867), stemmed from allegations of violations related to Sweden’s Gambling Act duty of care provisions. In a ruling dated June 12, the court fully dismissed the previous regulatory sanction after a thorough examination of the evidence and legal arguments presented by LeoVegas.
The initial issue began on March 25, 2025, when Spelinspektionen conducted a supervisory review focused on Roar Vegas’ responsible-gaming protocols for the first quarter of 2024 (January 1 – March 31). The review specifically targeted 12 customer accounts, selecting high-loss players across two age categories: 18-24 years and 25 years and older.
Three accounts in particular raised concerns for the authority due to their high monthly deposit limits, ranging from SEK100,000 to SEK300,000, and clear signs of excessive gambling behavior, which included rapid deposits, significant losses, and lengthy gaming sessions.
Spelinspektionen claimed that Roar Vegas did not provide "sufficient assistance" to these customers, acknowledging that while the operator did implement some measures to reduce gambling activity, such steps were deemed delayed and insufficient, amounting to a serious breach. Consequently, a formal reprimand accompanied the administrative fine.
In response, Roar Vegas appealed the ruling, arguing that it employed a comprehensive monitoring system with both automated alerts and manual follow-ups to identify and mitigate problematic gambling. The operator maintained that it had set deposit limits and suspensions for the affected customers and had taken a cautious approach to behavioral interventions before needing to escalate measures.
Roar also questioned the validity of certain indicators used by the regulator, such as extended session durations and rapid losses, asserting that these behaviors are common among sports bettors and should not directly imply problem gambling. A survey spanning the last quarter-century indicated that the proportion of Swedish adults identified as problem gamblers decreased from 2.2% in 2008-09 to 1.3% in 2021, a reduction of about 57,000 individuals or 35%.
Moreover, the company pointed out the legal ambiguity prior to legislative amendments enacted on June 1, 2024, which affected the handling of personal health and financial data relevant to responsible-gaming assessments.
In its analysis, the court (case no. 3061-25) determined that the Regulatory Authority's decision lacked the necessary clarity and robust evidence to justify sanctioning Roar Vegas. Key points in the ruling included:
– While the sampled accounts exhibited high-risk profiles, only three customers showed rapid, significant losses in conjunction with high deposit limits.
– The measures, including automatic notifications and mandatory deposit limits along with manual follow-ups, effectively curtailed the gambling activity of the concerned players.
– Although some interventions could have been implemented earlier, the court found these delays not serious enough to constitute a breach warranting penalties. Some automated alerts had been issued as soon as the day after the first deposits were made.
– The court concurred with Roar's position that the duty of care does not define specific timelines for intervention, emphasizing the need for license holders to balance customer privacy with voluntary and escalatory measures in the context of around-the-clock online gambling.
– Detailed documentation provided by Roar, including action plans and system improvements, weakened the regulator's argument of a clear breach.
