Recent developments in Belgium – online lottery games in the crossfire

Introduction

Belgian gambling policy is based on the premise that the offering of, and participation in, games of chance is in principle prohibited. Exceptions are provided for through an authorisation system based on the granting of licences by the Gaming Commission.

At the heart of Belgian gambling policy lies the objective of protecting consumers through a channelling policy: the legislature seeks to combat the illegal supply of games of chance by directing players towards a limited, strictly regulated, yet sufficiently attractive legal offer of online and land-based games of chance.

The most important piece of legislation is the Act of 7 May 1999, which contains the principal rules governing games of chance, including the different types of licences, the powers of the Gaming Commission, licensing conditions, consumer protection measures, and both criminal and administrative sanctions. The Act is further implemented through executive measures (Royal Decrees). In addition, the Gaming Commission provides guidance on specific issues through notices and communications published on its website.

Important Amendments to the Gaming Act

In 2024, the Belgian legislator introduced a series of amendments to the Gaming Act. These changes include:

• A complete ban on online bonuses and incentives: It is now explicitly prohibited to offer any form of gift, bonus, free participation, game credits, or similar advantages intended to influence player behaviour or attract or retain users.

Prohibition on joint offerings under a single domain: Online gambling operators are no longer allowed to offer different types of games of chance – such as betting, online casino games, and online slots – under the same domain name or URL. Players must now create separate accounts for each type of licence (e.g., one for betting, another for online dice games, etc.), and fund transfers between these accounts are no longer allowed. For example, funds in a player’s online betting account cannot be moved to their online casino account.

• Uniform age restriction raised to 21: The minimum age to participate in any form of game of chance, including betting and online betting, has been increased to 21 years old. Previously, only (online) casino and arcade games had this higher age threshold, while betting was permitted from age 18.
• General ban on advertising for games of chance and bets, unless specifically permitted by Royal Decree. This represents a significant shift in the approach to gambling promotion.

These amendments reflect a stricter regulatory approach, particularly with regard to the online gambling sector. However, several operators challenged the constitutionality of certain amendments, and the Constitutional Court delivered an important judgment on 11 December 2025 (discussed below).

Judgment of 11 December 2025: Discrimination Between Online Games of Chance and Online Lotteries

The Gaming Act of 7 May 1999 applies to (online) games of chance, but not to lotteries. Lotteries are regulated under separate legislation, and the National Lottery holds the exclusive right to commercialise lotteries, both online and land-based.

In its judgment no. 165/2025 of 11 December 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled on multiple challenges brought by licensed operators against the Act of 18 February 2024 amending the Gaming Act. One of the central arguments raised by the applicants was that the contested measures applied exclusively to operators subject to the Gaming Act, while online lottery games were not subject to equivalent restrictions.

While acknowledging that the National Lottery operates under a separate statutory framework and that lottery games have their own characteristics, the Court held that, when offered online, lottery games provide players with a gaming experience comparable to that of online games of chance and pose similar risks, particularly in terms of addiction. From the perspective of player protection, the Court found no material difference capable of justifying such divergent regulatory treatment.

The Constitutional Court held that the restrictions introduced in 2024 and applicable to online games of chance were discriminatory, since comparable restrictions do not apply to online lotteries. The Court granted the legislature until 31 December 2026 to remedy those discriminatory effects. Until that date, however, the effects of the discriminatory provisions are maintained. In substance, this means that the legislature is expected to intervene during 2026 and adopt the measures necessary to eliminate the discrimination. Several options are conceivable in this respect, including abolishing the restrictions introduced in 2024 for online games of chance or extending similar restrictions to online lotteries.

In addition, the judgment of 11 December 2025 contains several other important clarifications regarding the Gaming Act that may also be mentioned here.

Apart from the discrimination discussed above, the Constitutional Court confirmed the lawfulness of raising the minimum age for participation in all categories of games of chance to 21 years. In this respect, the Court referred, inter alia, to a “progressive trend” towards increasing the minimum age for participation in games of chance.

As regards the prohibition on bonuses, the Court clarified that the concept covers, among other things, the granting of free games (even where no money is involved), the application of multipliers to winnings from an initial game, measures reducing the player’s risk in the event of a loss, mechanisms whereby payments made on a website are multiplied on the basis of amounts previously wagered, and the awarding of gaming credit as a prize in an offline competition. By contrast, the return-to-player ratio does not constitute a prohibited bonus, since it is considered an inherent technical characteristic of games of chance.

Judgment of 16 April 2026: Excluded Persons Infor­mation System

This judgment concerns one of the main mechanisms designed to protect players, and vulnerable players in particular: EPIS (Excluded Persons Information System). EPIS is an electronic system containing all excluded players. Excluded players are persons who are excluded by law, who have voluntarily requested exclusion, or whose exclusion has been requested by a concerned third party. Gambling operators are required to consult EPIS each time a player wishes to enter a casino, gaming arcade, or betting shop, and each time a player wishes to participate in online games of chance. Players registered in EPIS are denied access to gambling establishments and are prohibited from participating in games of chance.

In 2024, the legislature modernised EPIS by making the use of the authentication module of the electronic identity card or residence permit mandatory. At the same time, the EPIS verification obligation was extended to bets accepted in newspaper shops. Newspaper shops holding an F2 licence are permitted to accept bets as an ancillary activity.

In its judgment of 16 April 2026, the Constitutional Court held, in essence, that the fact that the obligation of prior verification through EPIS and the minimum age requirement of 21 years do not apply to online lottery games constitutes discriminatory treatment and is therefore unconstitutional. The legislature was given until 31 December 2026 to remedy that discrimination by adopting the appropriate measures.

The Court thereby confirmed the reasoning already developed in Judgment No. 165/2025, reiterating that online lottery games and online games of chance present comparable gaming experiences and comparable risks. According to the Court, maintaining different regulatory thresholds in the absence of an objective justification amounts to unconstitutional discrimination.

Strict Regulation for Advertising for Licensed Games of Chance

Advertising for illegal games of chance is prohibited and may give rise to criminal sanctions. In addition, the Belgian legislature has imposed strict restrictions on advertising for licensed games of chance. These restrictions were first introduced through a Royal Decree of 27 February 2023 and were subsequently incorporated into the Gaming Act in 2024. They apply to advertising relating to both land-based and online gambling activities.

Under the revised Gaming Act, advertising for games of chance is in principle prohibited, unless expressly authorised by Royal Decree. The Royal Decree of 27 February 2023 provides for a limited number of exceptions to that general prohibition and identifies the situations in which gambling advertising remains permitted. It also lays down a number of general restrictions applicable to all authorised gambling advertising. For example, personalised advertising is prohibited, and all authorised advertisements must clearly indicate the minimum legal age for participation and contain a gambling prevention message.

Incidental advertising linked to the broadcasting of sports competitions and sporting events remains permitted. Sports sponsorship is also allowed for non-professional sports associations and, until 1 January 2028, for professional sports associations. However, such sponsorship may only consist of the display of the brand name and/or logo of the licence holder in specific ways. In particular, this was permitted on the sports clothing of players and teams, excluding underage players, and at the location where the sport is practised, although the latter possibility was only allowed until 1 January 2025.

Licensed operators may furthermore broadcast sponsorship messages displaying their brand name and/or logo during international, European, and Belgian sports competitions. Since 1 January 2025, however, such sponsorship messages are no longer permitted in relation to Belgian sports competitions, although they remain allowed for international and European sporting events (for example, Champions League games). The broadcasting of such sponsorship messages is subject to strict conditions. In particular, each message may not exceed five seconds, no more than two messages may be broadcast per hour, and the messages may only be broadcast during the 15-minute period before and after the live coverage of the sporting event, namely from the actual start until the actual end of the event.

For holders of online licences, advertising is essentially restricted to their own websites and official social media accounts. Such advertising must comply with several additional conditions: no interaction may take place in connection with the advertising, no compensation may be paid to third parties for promoting advertisements, and advertising using moving images may not exceed five seconds in duration.

The lawfulness of the principle that advertising for games of chance is prohibited, subject only to limited exceptions provided for by Royal Decree, was also challenged before the Constitutional Court. In its judgment of 11 December 2025, the Court held, first, that the prohibition is discriminatory insofar as comparable restrictions do not apply to online lotteries. The Court granted the Belgian legislature until 31 December 2026 to remedy that discrimination, while maintaining the effects of the legislation until that date.

The judgment also contains several important observations concerning gambling advertising more generally. First, the Court emphasised that gambling operators are required to exercise vigilance and are subject to a heightened duty of care when assessing the risks inherent in their activities. Second, the Court confirmed that the concept of advertising must be interpreted broadly and includes measures intended to enhance the image of the licence holder. This includes so-called “image” or “imago” campaigns, in which no specific gambling products or services are promoted, but which seek to improve the public image of the gambling operator or, more generally, to present games of chance in a positive light. Third, the Court clarified that advertising may legitimately serve to maintain a certain degree of “brand awareness”, which it considered important in order to prevent players from turning to illegal games of chance.

De-risking of Licensed Gaming Operators by Belgian Banks

To play their role as an instrument in Belgium’s channelling policy, licenced gaming operators need access to essential banking services. In fact, Belgian law requires all companies to have a bank account with a credit institution. The reality, however, is that it is increasingly cumbersome – not to say impossible – for licenced gaming operators to have a bank account with a Belgian bank to obtain financing for new investments, to obtain guarantee letters, etc. Belgian banks increasingly shut the door to licenced gaming operators – a practice referred to as “de-risking.

Some banks justify this practice as the logical consequence of legitimate risk management under applicable anti-money laundering (“AML”) legislation. In a noteworthy opinion of 5 January 2022 on de-risking, the European Banking Authority (“EBA”) recalls that the de-risking of entire categories of customers – without due consideration

of individual customers’ risk profiles – can be unwarranted and a sign of ineffective risk management in the fight against money laundering and financing of terrorism. The National Bank of Belgium (“NBB”) has followed suit. On 1 February 2022, the NBB published a circular detailing the “prudential expectations in relation to de-risking”. The NBB clearly states that it is neither appropriate nor consistent with legal and regulatory AML requirements for a financial institution’s customer acceptance policy to exclude by rule all business relationships with potential or existing clients on the basis of general criteria, such as the fact that these clients belong to a “particular industry”. Note that there are several procedures pending before Belgian courts where it is argued that banks infringe AML legislation, given that they exclude to the greatest extent all companies active in the gambling industry.

But there is more. Another trend is that banks also rely on environmental, social, and governance considerations (also known as “ESG”) to terminate agreements with licenced gaming operators or to refuse to deal with them. One major Belgian bank, for instance, has set a policy whereby all companies deriving a certain percentage of their total revenues from ownership or operation of gambling-related activities are “excluded” from all investment products, loans and other non-investment related activities. If all banks adopt the same or similar policies, access to (essential) banking services will become virtually impossible for licenced gaming operators and the question arises whether they can still play their instrumental role –

as desired by the legislator – in Belgium’s channelling policy.

Stricter Enforcement

Since 2011, the Belgian Gaming Commission has maintained a blacklist of websites offering games of chance and betting services without the required licence. Most Belgian internet service providers (“ISPs”) block access to the websites included on that blacklist.

As of May 2026, 762 websites are blacklisted. In the past, operators of such websites were generally not subject to financial penalties. More recently, however, the Gaming Commission has increasingly initiated sanction proceedings against illegal operators and imposed substantial administrative fines, which may amount to several hundreds of thousands of euros. A number of operators are challenging the lawfulness of those fines before the Belgian courts.

In May of 2024, the Belgian legislature introduced a specific legal basis for the blacklisting mechanism. Under the new provisions, the Gaming Commission is expressly required to maintain a list of URLs relating to websites offering unlicensed games of chance in Belgium. The updated blacklist is published in the Belgian Official Gazette, and the listed websites are notified to ISPs in order to ensure that access is blocked “as quickly as possible”.

In addition, since June 2024, the Belgian Code of Economic Law has provided for a new ex parte procedure enabling licensed operators, or any other party demonstrating a legitimate interest, to seek measures against websites and operators offering illegal games of chance, as well as against intermediaries facilitating such activities, including ISPs and digital service providers. Enforcement of these measures falls within the competence of the Economic Inspection. As of May 2026, the Economic Inspection had already adopted 11 implementing decisions in 2026, targeting not only ISPs but also other intermediaries such as Meta, Google, Microsoft, and Cloudflare.