The Swedish Administrative Court of Appeal upheld decisions against Bet365’s parent company, Hillside, confirming that it violated player protection obligations under national gambling laws.
The court found that Hillside (Gaming) and Hillside (Sports), two subsidiaries of the Hillside Group, had failed their duty of care from 2019 to 2022, specifically breaching mandatory deposit limit regulations.
As a result, the court reaffirmed earlier warnings and imposed financial penalties: SEK4 million ($401,010) for the gaming subsidiary and SEK40 million for the sports betting arm.
The court sided with Sweden's gambling regulator, stating that Hillside did not act swiftly or effectively in numerous cases where players showed signs of problematic gambling behavior.
According to Chapter 14, Section 1 of the Swedish Gaming Act, license holders are required to monitor player activities continuously and intervene to prevent detriment.
The findings showed that Hillside relied too heavily on automated communications such as pop-up messages and emails, and was slow to conduct manual reviews. Access restrictions were also delayed despite indications of ongoing risky player behavior.
From January 1, 2019, to April 18, 2022, Hillside allowed customers to choose a "no limit" deposit setting, which bypassed the law requiring players to actively select a deposit limit for daily, weekly, and monthly spends. Although a technical ceiling of SEK500 million existed, it was neither enforced nor communicated effectively, conflicting with Swedish law.
Both the Administrative Court in Linköping and the Administrative Court of Appeal in Jönköping ruled that the combination of warnings and financial penalties was appropriate. The penalty for betting operations was initially set higher but ultimately confirmed at SEK40 million after reductions. The gaming company's penalty was also reduced from the initial proposal but was confirmed at SEK4 million.
Spelinspektionen’s analysis focused on the ten players with the highest losses over a two-month span (October 17 to December 17, 2021), examining five cases more thoroughly. These individuals frequently deposited and lost money, activating Hillside’s internal early risk detection system, yet they received delayed intervention.
Investigations showed Hillside's over-reliance on automated notifications hindered timely application of stricter manual controls. In some cases, it took nearly a month before the operator implemented stronger restrictions despite ongoing risky behaviors.
Hillside defended its early risk detection system as effective and maintained that the sample analyzed was a small representation of its overall client base. The operator also pointed out that the regulatory guidelines lacked clarity on the timing of required interventions and asserted that their "no limit" option was capped appropriately. However, the courts dismissed these arguments as insufficient. Spelinspektionen highlighted that the analyzed customers continued to incur losses despite primarily informational measures from the operator. The regulator viewed the failure to implement mandatory deposit limits as a chronic systemic issue that did not comply with legal frameworks.
This situation is not the first instance where Hillside's player protection measures have been scrutinized. Earlier this year, the Dutch gambling authority, Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), imposed a binding order on Hillside for not adhering to certain duty of care mandates, indicating that the operator inadequately responded to signs that players might be unable to afford their gambling. The period in focus spanned from December 6, 2024, to June 6, 2025, during which KSA noted Hillside's failure to take suitable action to enforce player protection.
