The Swedish Administrative Court of Appeal upheld fines and warnings against Bet365's parent company, Hillside, after dismissing its appeals on Thursday. The court confirmed that Hillside violated player protection obligations set forth by Sweden’s gambling legislation.
Two of Hillside's subsidiaries, Hillside (Gaming) and Hillside (Sports), were found negligent in their duty of care towards players from 2019 to 2022, specifically breaching mandatory deposit limit rules.
The court sided with Sweden's gambling regulator, affirming that Hillside acted too slowly and ineffectively in addressing numerous cases where customers showed signs of excessive gambling. According to the Swedish Gaming Act (Chapter 14, Section 1), license holders are required to continuously monitor player behavior and take action to prevent potential harm.
Hillside reportedly depended too heavily on automated communications, such as pop-ups and email reminders, and failed to transition to manual assessments in a timely manner. Access restrictions were also delayed despite persistent risky behaviors among players.
From January 1, 2019, to April 18, 2022, customers on Hillside’s platform could set their deposit limits to "no limit," bypassing the legal requirement for active selection of maximum daily, weekly, and monthly limits. Although there was a technical upper ceiling of SEK500 million, it was neither enforced nor clearly communicated, making it noncompliant with Swedish law.
The courts deemed the previously announced penalties proportionate, with the gaming division’s fine confirmed at SEK4 million, reduced from Spelinspektionen’s initial proposal, while the sports betting business faced a substantial penalty of SEK40 million, down from an initial SEK65 million.
Spelinspektionen's analysis focused on the ten players with the largest losses over a two-month period from October 17 to December 17, 2021. Five of those profiles were examined closely, revealing frequent deposits and losses that triggered Hillside’s internal risk detection system, yet timely interventions were lacking.
Investigations indicated that Hillside overly relied on automated alerts without sufficiently escalating cases to more robust manual reviews. In some instances, it took nearly a month for the operator to implement stronger restrictions, despite clear indications of risky behavior.
Hillside defended its early risk detection system as generally effective and criticized the sample size analyzed as unrepresentative of its overall customer base. The company argued that Swedish regulatory guidance on intervention timing was vague and stated that the “no limit” option was functionally capped in line with earlier regulations. However, the courts found these arguments insufficient to dismiss the breaches noted.
Spelinspektionen stressed that customers in the analysis continued to suffer losses despite Hillside’s primarily informational attempts to mitigate risk. The regulator also pointed out that the failure to enforce mandatory deposit limits was a systemic issue incompatible with existing laws.
This ruling marks yet another challenge for Hillside's compliance with player protection standards. Earlier this year, the Dutch gambling authority, Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), imposed a binding order on the company after it failed to meet specific duty of care requirements, criticizing its inadequacy in responding to indications that players might not be able to afford their gambling. This order covered the period between December 6, 2024, and June 6, 2025, highlighting additional concerns over Hillside’s interventions.
