The Autorité nationale des jeux (ANJ), France's gambling authority, has levied a fine of €500,000 ($572,797) against an unidentified online betting operator, dubbed Company X, for shortcomings in identifying and assisting customers exhibiting signs of problematic gambling behavior.
This decision, announced on Thursday, stemmed from an investigation that revealed Company X's failure to adequately recognize 29 players classified as high risk. The operator entirely overlooked six players and improperly categorized an additional 23 at a lower risk level.
The ANJ's administrative inquiry took place from October 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024, during which it analyzed data from Company X’s secure data vault, known as the “coffre-fort.” By implementing a scoring system that considered various factors—like deposit frequency, betting volume, loss trends, and players' histories of self-exclusion—the ANJ identified the 30 customers with the most significant risk profiles. Out of these, 29 were central to complaints filed by the regulatory body.
Additionally, Company X did not deliver adequate support or interventions to 25 of these identified players to help regulate their gambling habits. Combined net losses for these 29 players amounted to €683,355, while Company X recorded net earnings of €190,501.86 during that same timeframe.
The legal foundation for the penalties derives from the updated gambling regulations established on May 12, 2010, and the Code de la sécurité intérieure, which mandates licensed online gaming operators to detect excessive gambling behaviors and assist those affected. A ministerial reference framework from April 9, 2021, although non-binding, also outlines indicators essential for recognizing risk, including gambling frequency, attempts to recover losses, voluntary limit changes, multiple account management, and time spent on gambling activities.
The commission highlighted the importance of two separate duties: the accurate identification of risky gambling behaviors and the provision of necessary support measures. Non-compliance in either area justifies the imposition of financial penalties, irrespective of performance in the other.
Furthermore, the ANJ maintains that historical data prior to an inspection—such as recent voluntary self-exclusions—can be crucial in assessing the risk levels of players during the inspection period.
While the reference framework allows flexibility in detection approaches, operators are legally required to demonstrate compliance with all necessary efforts. This includes supplementing suggested risk indicators with any pertinent additional data.
The ANJ has recently improved its regulatory techniques for addressing gambling issues, introducing a new algorithm in May that aims to identify more potential problem gamblers engaged in online and in-play betting than those currently reported by operators.
Company X challenged the ANJ’s methods and legal interpretations, arguing that the absence of a statutory definition for “excessive” or “pathological” gambling leaves obligations ambiguous. It contested the application of certain risk indicators and mentioned that measures such as automated warning emails and exclusion from specific promotions should qualify as sufficient interventions.
The operator cited its recent steps to enhance its detection technology and broaden its player protection team, reporting a 28% average drop in net losses over a 90-day period as grounds for less severe penalties.
The commission dismissed these arguments, affirming that the reference framework is clear and should be enforced as incorporated into law. It also reiterated the legitimacy of the ANJ’s chosen indicators and scoring system, rejecting the technical complications raised by the operator.
Regarding previous violations, although acknowledging the role of automated notifications in reducing harm, the commission deemed them inadequate for the majority, sharply criticizing continued bonuses awarded to high-risk players that might encourage irresponsible gambling behavior.
Company X has faced prior sanctions, including a fine in 2024 for exceeding the prescribed payout rate for 2022. However, the commission decided to treat this latest infringement as a separate matter and did not raise the fine based on earlier penalties.
The formal decision, dated July 10, 2026, will be communicated to Company X, which has a two-month period to file an administrative appeal to the relevant courts.
