“Money for nothing”: The case law of the EU Court of Justice on the regulation of gambling

Abstract

In a series of recent judgments, the Court of Justice has developed its approach to games of chance and online gambling. It has made it clear it will not use the EU free movement of services provisions to liberalize the internal market for games of chance. Member States are given a remarkable discretion to regulate gambling services. To this end, the Court applies its standard test for restrictions very flexibly, including even an interesting moral strand, on the basis of overriding reasons in the general interest and objectives of combating fraud and gambling addiction. The remaining scrutiny is essentially left to the national courts. As far as the award of licences is concerned, the requirements of transparency are applied more strictly, which may have a significant impact on market access. This contribution provides a thorough analysis of the EU framework now in place for games of chance. In addition, it proposes some general guidelines for the needed political, legislative activity at the EU level. Such activity could enhance both revenue and Member State control over gambling services, whilst allowing cooperation between them to achieve their individual objectives.

Strengthening channeling policy: the Finnish approach to protecting domestic online gambling market

“…Previous research has suggested that channeling policies are justified in terms of higher levels of consumer protection, fewer criminal activities, and surplus of profits ( cf. , Van Den Bogaert and Cuyvers, 2011 ; Borch, 2022 ; Selkee et al, 2022 ). Our results partly support these findings.…”

“…Channeling has different meanings across contexts, and these have translated into varying modes of implementation ( cf. Van den Bogaert and Cuyvers, 2011 ; Borch, 2022 ; Järvinen-Tassopoulos, 2022 ; Selkee et al, 2022 ). Also, the Finnish monopolistic gambling regime has been historically related to the funding of ‘good causes’ with gambling proceeds ( cf.…”

“…Previous research has shown that channeling policies are justified with at least three different rationales ( cf. Van Den Bogaert and Cuyvers, 2011 ; Borch, 2022 ; Selkee et al, 2022 ): First, regulated markets are expected to have higher levels of consumer protection, making channeling a tool for gambling harm prevention. This of course presupposes that regulated gambling provision is indeed safer.…”

“…While the interviewee (PS3) above talked about an 'appropriate gambling offer' , the latter interviewee (PS13) questions the plans of the Finnish gambling provider to develop their gambling products and services. If the main purpose of the Finnish gambling policy is to prevent and limit gambling harms, then channeling online gambling toward the Veikkaus' website cannot encourage consumers by advertising campaigns or by reminding gamblers about the 'good causes' to which gambling proceeds have been distributed in the Finnish welfare society (Van Den Bogaert and Cuyvers, 2011;Littler and Järvinen-Tassopoulos, 2018;Marionneau and Kankainen, 2018). Some of the public servants saw channeling as a means to maintain the current monopolistic regime in Finland.…”