The administrative court in Linköping has now overturned a decision by Spelinspektionen, the Swedish Gambling Authority, against Roar Vegas. The dispute focused on how far the operator should have gone when customers showed signs of excessive gambling.
Court Sets a Higher Bar
The judgment does not state that the three players in question had a low-risk profile. Rather, the court agreed that their gambling patterns required intervention. The point of this issue was completely different. Namely, it revolved around whether or not Roar Vegas had failed so clearly that a financial penalty was justified.
In the end, the answer was negative. This might be helpful guidance for Swedish licensees. Player protection rules still apply, but the regulator should be able to demonstrate an obvious connection between the alleged breach and the action required from the operator.
What Spelinspektionen Found
The SEK8m fine was issued in March 2025, according to Spelinspektionen. The regulator said Roar Vegas had failed to take appropriate action for three out of the 12 customers examined.
Spelinspektionen saw the warning signs in high deposit limits, long sessions, frequent logins, and significant losses in a relatively short period of time. The regulator accepted that Roar Vegas had taken certain measures to combat the problem, but added that the operator relied too heavily on automated responsible gambling messages and took too long to escalate.
Roar Vegas disputed that view. It stated that its actions were well within the bounds of the law and that the measures eventually reduced the customers’ gambling activity. Moreover, Roar Vegas pointed out that Sweden’s duty-of-care rules do not set a specific timetable for when operators must escalate interventions.
Why the Appeal Succeeded
The arguments made by the court relied on legal certainty. The court argued that the operator had used automated notices, deposit limits, and personal contact with the customers. While some actions could have been taken or escalated earlier, this alone would not suffice for an action against Roar Vegas.
For the sanction to stand, the breach had to be clear and unambiguous. However, the court found that the standard was not met in this case.
What Comes Next
Spelinspektionen has three weeks from the June 12 ruling to appeal. At the time of the appeal report, neither the regulator nor LeoVegas had made a public statement.
This judgment provides a valuable lesson for Swedish operators. While automation may provide some assistance, it is likely not going to be sufficient in every instance. Operators should therefore keep records to prove the moment of risk, the measures that were taken, and the reason why the next measure was taken or not taken. For regulators, this case illustrates that broad player protection responsibilities require proof when turned into financial penalties.
