The Autorité nationale des jeux (ANJ), France's gambling regulator, has levied a €500,000 ($572,797) fine against an unidentified online betting operator, referred to as Company X, for failing to adequately identify and support customers who display signs of problematic gambling behavior.
This move comes after an investigation revealed that Company X did not properly identify 29 high-risk players, with six players overlooked completely and 23 categorized at a lower risk level than warranted.
Conducted between October 1, 2023, and March 31, 2024, the ANJ's probe examined Company X's data stored in a secure vault, known as the "coffre-fort." Using a scoring system based on various indicators—such as deposit frequency, betting intensity, loss patterns, and self-exclusion history—the regulator pinpointed the top 30 players at the highest risk. Out of these, 29 players were central to the formal grievances filed against the company.
The investigation also noted that Company X inadequately provided appropriate support or interventions for 25 of these players, who required assistance in moderating their gambling habits. The combined net losses for this group of 29 players amounted to €683,355, while Company X realized net gains of €190,501.86 during the specified period.
The commission's ruling is anchored in several legal foundations. First, it relies on the 12 May 2010 gambling law (as amended) and the Code de la sécurité intérieure, which obligate licensed online operators to detect excessive gambling behavior and offer necessary support to those affected. Additionally, the ministerial framework from April 9, 2021, provides guidance for risk detection indicators like betting frequency, loss chasing, voluntary limit adjustments, multiple accounts, and time spent gambling.
The ANJ emphasized that the duties to identify risky behavior and deliver adequate support are separate and independently enforceable, meaning a failure in either area could result in sanctions. Historical incidents—such as recent voluntary self-exclusions—were also deemed relevant when assessing risk levels during the investigation period.
Notably, the 2021 framework does not prescribe a specific detection algorithm, yet it mandates that operators must make "all necessary efforts" to comply by integrating recommended indicators with additional data.
In May, the ANJ introduced a new algorithm aimed at identifying a broader range of potential problem gamblers in online and in-play betting than those currently reported.
Company X challenged the regulator's methodology and questioned the clarity of its legal obligations, arguing that French law does not clearly define "excessive" or "pathological" gambling, which they claimed led to ambiguity. The company disputed certain indicators, including the categorization of "completed bets" and the management of voluntary limits across reopened accounts, asserting concerns about false positives.
Furthermore, the operator claimed that automated warning emails, exclusions from specific promotions, and temporary suspensions related to fraud constituted adequate graduated interventions. Company X also pointed to remedial efforts, including enhancements to its detection algorithm and the expansion of its player-protection team, citing a 28% average decrease in net losses over a 90-day pre-and-post evaluation period as evidence against a hefty penalty.
However, the commission dismissed these arguments, affirming that the cadre de référence is enforceable as it has been incorporated directly into law. It also supported the ANJ's indicators and scoring techniques, rejecting the technical objections raised by Company X.
While acknowledging that automated emails can assist in reducing harm, the commission identified these measures as insufficient in many cases, criticizing any ongoing bonuses directed at high-risk players that could encourage continued gambling.
This is not the first time Company X has faced sanctions. In 2024, the operator was fined for violating the statutory payout rate ceiling for 2022. However, the commission chose not to escalate the current fine based on the prior incident, treating the violations as separate issues.
The decision, dated July 10, 2026, will be formally communicated to Company X, which has a two-month period to file an administrative appeal with the appropriate courts.
