Finland has gone far beyond the proposal stage. A new Gambling Act has been adopted in December 2025, approved in January 2026, and licence applications are now open, commencing March 1, 2026. On July 1, 2027, licensed gambling operations are to begin, as Finland breaks away from Veikkaus’ monopoly in online betting, casino games, and money bingo. Officials have said that this move aims to minimize harm from gambling while improving the channelling rate, or the share of play within the licensed system.
This broader policy objective is also important in the current bonus debate. Under the new framework, there is only limited space for licensed operators to provide bonus play money and extras in an ongoing customer relationship. Other forms of free play, discounts, and special combinations are not allowed. Finland has also introduced a number of broader marketing restrictions, such as limits on interactive social media promotions and a ban on influencer collaborations.
Why the Bonus Debate Is Shifting
The sharpest criticism came from Finnish industry site Kasinoilmankierratysta.fi. It produced an analysis which suggested that the real question is not the 5x wagering limit attached to allowed bonus models, but whether it will allow operators to tailor bonuses to suit different players. According to the site, that would remove activity-based offers from the future license holders’ toolbox.
That distinction is important because bonus segmentation is not only used to push stronger offers. In regulated markets, it is also used to limit promotions for casual players, reward loyalty in a controlled way, and reduce or withhold incentives where risk signals are higher. If every player is treated through the same bonus structure, operators could lose flexibility in both retention and risk management. That is the central point raised by the Finnish analysis.
Offshore Pressure Could Become the Real Story
The risk of policy is obvious. If licensed brands are launched with strict ad regulations and limited bonus options, then offshore sites could arguably retain an advantage with players expecting a high level of bespoke VIP treatment. The Finnish government has consistently claimed that channelling into a regulated market is a primary objective of the reforms. A system that is designed to be safe but not particularly competitive in practice may not be well-equipped to achieve that goal.
Finland is attempting to open up the market without importing the more aggressive aspects of global gambling marketing. That looks reasonable as a policy objective. The next step will depend on whether the policy strikes an appropriate balance between allowing licensed operators to compete with unlicensed supply. If this is not achieved, then the bonus debate may become an early test of whether Finland can support its own channelling ambitions.
