Study: Regulation is still a major political topic, which why different states deal with the issue in different ways.
In the EU, online gambling shows growth prospects, and it is estimated that the gross revenue in 2020 is €24.7bn. Because of this magnitude that signifies 21% of the entire gambling in all member states, it may amaze online gamblers to know that no-particular -EU-wide regulation exist to control this profitable and growing market. Even though between 2012 and 2018, the EU Commission sought an official online gambling regulation, this dream was attainable.
It formed a structure for information sharing and administrative alliance between gambling regulators of member states; its primary attainment, a non-restrictive suggestion to protect online gambling consumer players and minors, has wholly been implemented in Denmark. This existing Commission hasn’t suggested a different regulation for the industry, and as a result, EU online gambling regulation is still a heated debate because of diverse competing interests. It does not address the requirements of the online gambling sector nor consumers.
The pandemic’s impact on the online sector presented a challenge for the EU’s consumer protection structure, offering a guarantee that it was sufficiently robust and mature to address the unexpected growth and make online customer trading secure. But, many EU consumer regulations do not apply to online gambling trading. So, it excludes them from basic protection systems and mandatory disclosure requirements.
This pandemic might also prove to be a respite because of the lack of the existing EU strategy for online gambling. Caution about the shift to online gambling to have fun because of the pandemic led some EU states to present restrictive gambling suppliers’ measures. Examples are total bans, advertising restrictions, deposits, and bonus limits. However, at the EU-level, no reaction was forthcoming.
From 1991 the EU policy stipulates that gambling control is a matter of public interest, arising from member states’ concern. Thus, each state regulates gambling individually, and it becomes a highly politicized matter. It forms a divided patchwork of countrywide gambling regulations throughout the EU, signifying the whole section of prospective regulatory solutions.
The different regulations affect consumers. Varied national gambling ignorance signifies that players will not receive a similar protection rate from all gambling websites from across the border. The absence of a common playing-field exposes online gambling consumers to the danger of inadequate regulation and manipulation. It fails to attain the ultimate consumer protection that the EU wants the digital market to achieve.
Fragmentation also affects the gambling industry. When an EU-wide certification regime is absent, it leads to expenses and market restrictions for gambling operators. Apart from a black market offering unlawful gambling websites, not having similar rules forms an ‘unclear’ EU market of certified gambling operators. They have certification in their resident states, but their certification status does not apply in the state they present it. So, it renders their activities across the border unlawful.
In terms of being fair, member states can limit local as well as cross-border gambling services. It can include shielding clients by limiting access or directing demand to permitted gambling websites. Legislators are given a lot of latitude and a great secrecy level when limiting access to gambling markets nationwide.
The Santa Casa describes a charitable organization set up in Portugal in 1783. It controls the national lottery in the county for compassionate purposes. Because of this, it is among the globe’s ancient on-going lotteries. In 2003 after the lottery became operational online, the Portuguese law sustained its monopoly and then included online activities. As a result, it excluded online operators who had licenses in the member states nearby.
After this rule was opposed, the Court of Justice in the EU passed it, noting that online gambling specific features posed perils that warranted the national authorities’ more excellent controls.
But, member states do not have total freedom. The Court often noted that even though national governments maintain the legislative right, they do it without harmonizing steps at the EU level. Neither can states deem gambling to be a new taxation source to boost national incomes. Gambling taxation revenue should be used instead to finance generous or public interest acts, even though there is a wide variety of fair causes.
Governments that allow their gambling markets for competing may not intentionally discriminate against operators who are non-national. Until the other day, the Commission used enforcement proceedings for actively informing member states that gambling legislation should adhere to Internal Market regulations and keep off from unfair or discriminatory steps. In December 2017, however, it proclaimed that it aimed to stop more enforcement processes, quoting strategic causes and the quest for different political priorities.
The declaration indicates the crucial point of the issue: in the European Union, regulating online gambling is still a significant political matter. Suppose the EU does not have political support; in that case, it is not likely to present similar regulations for online gambling that deals with the operator market access, player protection, and national state strategy goals that are often abused.
