Key developments & the latest trends on the Swedish gambling market

Continued struggles to direct players to licensed operators

Since the reregulation of the Swedish gambling market in 2019, the issue of how to entice customers to licensed operators and block unlicensed operators from targeting the Swedish gambling market has remained the most topical issue both in the industry and on the legislator’s agenda. While opinions in the Swedish gambling community differ on what is currently the level of channelisation to licensed operators, it seems to be common ground that the market currently fails to meet the target line of 90 percent set prior to the reregulation. In previous surveys in 2023, the SGA estimated that approximately 86 percent of gambling on the competitively exposed part of the Swedish market took place on platforms covered by Swedish licenses, although that number seems to be lower for commercial online gambling. However, both Swedish license holders as wells as interbranch associations have questioned that estimate and argue that this number is currently in fact considerably lower.

Anticipated change of the scope of the Swedish license regime

Considering the failure to reach the 90 percent target line and that the additional legal remedies mandated to the SGA in the last couple of years have proved insufficient to counter the illegal gambling services, the Swedish government appointed a commission instructed to examine a possible widening and clarifying of the scope of the Swedish Gambling Act. In September 2025, the commission presented its report suggesting the implementation of an access-based scope of applicability, thereby abandoning the so-called “direction criterion” which currently limits the license requirement to the provision of online gambling services that are provided in Sweden, or which are directed towards the Swedish market. In short, the direction criterion essentially requires that the design or functions of the gambling platform manifests an intent to target the Swedish market, e.g. Swedish language, use of Swedish currency for deposits and/or withdrawals, or Swedish customer support, whereas the mere accessibility for Swedish customers to gamble on a foreign online gambling platform does not suffice. While the direction criterion has been subject to extensive regulatory litigation in the past years, many issues remain to be settled by authoritative case law.

If adopted, the proposed accessibility-based licence obligation would in practice require unlicensed foreign operators to implement geo-blocking of their platforms in relation to the Swedish market to avoid violating the Swedish license requirement. The report also suggests an extension of the concept of liability for contributory illegal gambling which primarily will affect payment service providers (PSPs) which may become subject to a rule of presumption that payments made by Swedish residents should be considered related to gambling in Sweden. Similarly to the proposed abandonment of the direction criterion, the rule of presumption is intended to facilitate supervision and pressure PSPs not to cooperate with unlicensed operators.

The commission report has been applauded by the industry, which seemingly presupposes the implementation of such a regime. However, a similar order was originally suggested by the commission that initially examined the reregulation of the Swedish gambling market back in 2017, before ultimately being dismissed by the Swedish Government Office. While the obvious shortcomings to effectively shut out unlicensed operators from the Swedish marker speaks heavily in favour that the suggestion will pass this time, the proposal raises several highly complex legal issues which must be addressed and remitted to relevant instances before becoming reality. The proposal, which is suggested to be implemented by 1 January 2027, is currently being processed in the Swedish Government Office which is seemingly busy with other issues with the upcoming election in September 2026 presumably being a reason for that.

Sanctions against B2B operators

In parallel to the focus on targeting illegal B2C operators, the SGA has also rendered its first sanctions against B2B operators following the implementation of B2B licenses in the summer of 2022. In the handful of supervisory cases initiated to this date, the sole litigated issue has concerned the alleged illegal provision of gambling software to unlicensed operators that have, according to the SGA, directed their services towards the Swedish market.

Notably, the first judgment from the Administrative Court on this issue was rendered in April 2025. The case concerned a B2B license holder which through a group company provided gambling software to two unlicensed B2C operators which had been blacklisted and injuncted by the SGA from directing gambling services towards the Swedish market. However, the gambling software provided to the operators was geo-blocked and the games were thus not available for the Swedish market. Moreover, the B2B operator had included provisions in the license agreements with the B2C operators to the effect that the gambling software provided must not be made available on markets where the B2C operators did not hold a necessary license.

The Court dismissed both arguments with reference to the wording of the prohibition in the Gambling Act, i.e. that it is illegal to provide gambling software to unlicensed operators directing their services to Sweden – full stop. Unsurprisingly, the judgment has sparked intense debate within the Swedish gambling community where the commercial impracticability of the Court’s position has been questioned. In summary, the criticism mainly relates to the fact that the B2B operator had in fact taken reasonable measures by geo-blocking the Swedish market to effectively prevent the games from becoming available in Sweden which arguably forms the rationale of the relevant statute. Further, the B2B operator had included a clause in its agreement with the B2C operator that the games must not be provided to markets where it did not hold the required license rights. In retrospect, one may ask which further measures that the B2B operator should have taken to ascertain compliance. While the Court’s interpretation of the statute can possibly be claimed to be supported by its wording, the criticism against the judgment is fair as the consequential, virtually uncontrollable compliance risk arguably goes beyond what the legislator had intended for.

Fortunately, the judgement has been appealed by the B2B operator and further guidance from the Administrative Court of Appeal, which is expected to grant leave to appeal, should thus be provided in 2026.

Actions against payment service providers

In addition to targeting B2B operators, the SGA has also targeted several payment service providers in its quest to get at the illegal operators. The legal basis of the supervisory actions was that the provision of the relevant payment services, which makes use of the Swedish identification application BankID, to unlicensed operators formed an aiding and abetting of illegal gambling services.

However, in the pilot case adjudicated by the Administrative Court of Appeal, the injunction issued by the SGA was found to be too general in its wording, as it covered all unlicensed operators, i.e. also legal B2C providers which do not direct their services to Sweden. The Appellate Court thus rejected the action in its entirety for this reason already, and before it got the chance to elaborate on the fundamental issue whether implementing BankID in the payment services entailed that the services are directed to Sweden. In sweeping fashion, the Court merely stated that there was no evidence of illegal gambling, nor any furtherance of such operations. Considering the Court’s view on the fundamental failure to draft a proper injunction, it is understandable that the case was not appealed by the SGA.

While the judgment indeed indicates that the use of BankID is generally not sufficient to consider that the services are targeting the Swedish market, the Court’s reasoning is explicitly referencing the evidence in the case and not the legal issue as such which leaves some room for uncertainty. Obviously, it is very unfortunate that the case turned on the SGA’s fundamental mistake with the wording of the injunction considering the limited appellate court case law on the direction criterion.

Responsible Gambling – Dual battlegrounds

Supreme Court precedent on liability for net losses

In the summer of 2025, the Swedish Supreme Court rendered its much-anticipated precedent in the civil case between a former customer and an online gambling provider concerning operator liability for the customer’s net losses. The Supreme Court confirmed the Patent and Market Court of Appeal’s judgment, ordering the operator to reimburse the customer’s full net losses (approx. EUR530,000) attributable to a certain customer VIP period. The judgment is the first of its kind in Sweden and could potentially set off a litigious trend similar to those witnessed in e.g. Germany and Austria.

The basis for the action was that the agreements entered into between the customer and the operator were to be deemed null and void considering that the operator, by way of analysing the gambling patterns of the customer, allegedly had knowledge of the customer’s gambling problems and used it to repeatedly target him with individualised marketing during a certain VIP customer period. The Supreme Court held that the operator’s access and usage of the customer’s high-volume gambling data to approach him with bonus offers and gifts manifested knowledge of his excessive gambling issues. Further, the Court held that the individualised marketing was intrusive and concerned high-risk games and thus declared all bets placed null and void under the Swedish Contracts Act, entailing full recovery of his net losses attributable to the VIP period.

The first post-precedent judgment did not have to wait long as a similar case that had been stayed before the Svea Court of Appeal pending the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings was adjudicated in February 2026. The Court of Appeal again found in favour of the player ordering full recovery of his net losses but chose not to address that the claim partly concerned recovery of post-2019 net losses, i.e. losses under the current licensing regime including the regulatory RG burden. The nuances of such circumstances and their potential relevance for the application of the Supreme Court precedent thus remain unanswered. Considering that both claims were brought against the very same operator and concerned similar VIP customer arrangements, the outcome in the Court of Appeal case was fairly expected and cannot serve as an indication that the Supreme Court judgment will entail a broad wave of successful awards across the lower courts.

Arguably, the Supreme Court’s precedent is highly circumstantial and its applicability across the broad volume of claims is thus questionable. While the number of similar claims against operators filed before Swedish courts have seemingly increased and are unsurprisingly heavily influenced by the Supreme Court’s reasoning, it is yet premature to conclude what consequences the precedent will ultimately have on the Swedish gambling market as these actions are yet to be adjudicated by the first instance courts.

Regulatory proceedings on RG issues

In parallel to the civil proceedings, the SGA has actively been enforcing regulatory RG requirements, where considerable sanction fees have been issued against several operators due to shortcomings in relation to the duty of care. In summary, the alleged RG violations mainly concern insufficient detection of excessive gambling patterns, and non-existent, late, or ineffective preventive RG measures in relation to such gambling patterns or risk indicative behaviour. However, in the spring of 2025 the Administrative Court of Linköping rendered a fundamentally reforming judgment in a case against the state-owned operator Svenska Spel concerning the “duty of care requirement” which requires operators to take proper measures in relation to their customers to limit the negative consequences of gambling.

The Court found that the vague nature of the duty of care statute in the Gambling Act, and the absence of binding regulations and authoritative case law entailed that compliance must be assessed with caution. Moreover, the Court concluded that liability for administrative sanctions comprise elements of criminal law, and violations of the duty of care obligation should thus be reserved for severe cases. Considering that the operator had taken some preventive RG measures, the Court overturned the 100 MSEK fine issued by the SGA.

The judgment is groundbreaking, not least since the administrative courts until that point had almost exclusively upheld the findings of the SGA, but foremost since it arguably disqualifies the statutory duty of care requirement due to its unprecise and vague concept. Arguably, the judgment is a testament of the legislature and the SGA’s failure to provide proper guidance on the duty of care requirement. The case has been appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal. If upheld, swift action by the SGA to issue detailed regulations on the duty of care requirement will be called for with the risk that the duty of care requirement could otherwise become practically unenforceable.

Sweden as a potential venue for the enforcement of foreign judgments

In the wake of the controversial implementation of the Maltese Bill 55 which essentially prevents the enforcement of foreign civil judgments against Maltese gambling operators in Malta, claimants have been forced to look elsewhere to try to collect and enforce judgements primarily rendered by Austrian and German courts. The Maltese bill has presumably had a downstream effect in the recent up-tick in the number of filed applications by foreign claimants before the Swedish Enforcement Authority, and the cases are finding their way up through the instances with various outcomes. In April 2026, the Swedish Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in such a case concerning the seizure of funds of a Swedish operator. In short, the case concerns the legal classification of the funds seized and whether operator and players funds have been properly separated under the concept of insolvency law. Interestingly, the latter issue also carries a compliance aspect considering the regulatory requirement to protect player funds from third party claims.

The Supreme Court case, which should be decided in late 2026 or early 2027, may thus entail multiple effects, both in terms of enforcement strategy, financial account arrangements for operators, as well as regulatory considerations.

New gambling forms

Prediction markets

The global rise of prediction markets has unsurprisingly become a topical and debated phenom in the Swedish gambling industry. While the concept of licensable betting services under the current Swedish gambling regime is broad in the sense that it encompasses all betting on events (financial activities e.g. stock performance being excluded), other aspects of the business models adopted by the leading prediction market operators remain questionable from a Swedish legal perspective. A fundamental point in assessing the potential legality the current Swedish gambling regime will presumably by the role of the operator as a mere provision of a platform to enable peer-to-peer bets will likely fail to meet the RG and AML requirements. To anticipate the growing consumer interest in these services and to avoid a negative channelization towards unlicensed operators, it would be prudent for the Swedish legislator and/or the SGA to start considering how the provision of such services could fit in a Swedish license model.

Crash games

Another game category which is yet to be established widely on the Swedish gambling market are various forms of crash games. While a few operators have launched such games on their platforms, the industry at large is hesitant on the legality of the games as it is currently uncertain how to categorize them under the currently available gambling licenses. Arguments have been raised that crash games could fit both under a commercial online games license as well as a betting license, but the SGA is yet to take a stance on this issue. Considering the international appreciation of the games and the interest in driving players to licensed operators, it is desirable for the Swedish legislator and/or the SGA to take a stance also on these games sooner rather than later.