There Is No 'U.S. Market': Regulatory Challenges for European Operators

For a European operator looking to expand, the so-called 'U.S. market' is, in fact, a collection of over 50 independent jurisdictions. There is no single license or regulator at the federal level. Each state autonomously defines, regulates, and supervises gambling under a framework that includes the Wire Act, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), and the Bank Secrecy Act. This diversity imposes a flexible and adaptive compliance architecture, not a one-size-fits-all model.

Regulatory Fragmentation: No Single Market or License

The United States presents a regulatory structure substantially different from Europe. While operators accustomed to the Malta Gaming Authority or the UK Gambling Commission may expect a centralized framework, in the U.S., each state autonomously sets its own rules and licenses. Currently, only eight states permit regulated online casinos. Online sports betting is allowed in most, but the sweepstakes and social gaming models have rapidly changed: Montana was the first to prohibit them in May 2025, followed by Connecticut and New York in December 2025, and California, whose AB 831 came into effect in January 2026.

“The regulatory perimeter is constantly changing and the compliance architecture must be designed for movement, not a still picture.” — Alexander Rea, Fyntek

Impact on Compliance Planning and Market Access

The changing regulatory environment forces companies to design compliance processes that anticipate potential changes in the legal definition of the product or operational requirements, state by state. A recent example can be seen in the evolution of sweepstakes, where legislations in four states have redrawn the model in less than a calendar year.

U.S. Licensing: Key Differences from Europe

Licensing in the U.S. goes far beyond obtaining accreditation for the operator. In many states, platform providers, suppliers, and even marketing partners must register and comply with their own requirements. Verification processes include extensive suitability reviews of key individuals, beneficial ownership, and personal financial disclosures that surpass the depth of European regimes.

Corporate decisions—including the jurisdiction of incorporation, the location of the license, and revenue billing—directly impact federal and state tax issues, in addition to regulatory expectations regarding the presence and operational substance of the entity. Modifying these decisions afterward under the pressure of licensing deadlines can result in significant costs.

Common Mistakes in Market Entry

A common mistake among European companies is underestimating the duration and complexity of the licensing processes. These can extend over quarters or years and are always managed at the state level, never nationally. Successful operators approach corporate structuring as a design exercise, not merely a formalities procedure.

U.S. Banking Access: A Major Operational Challenge

Opening operational accounts and establishing relationships with U.S. banks represents a significant barrier to launch. The track record of offshore operators and litigation in the sector has led banking entities to act with high risk aversion. Neither legality nor licenses guarantee immediate acceptance.

Multiple relationships need to be managed: operational accounts, sponsors, registration programs with card associations, and proper merchant categorization. Losses of banking access often result from calendars that prioritize licensing while relegating banking to late-stage processes.

“In the U.S. market, more launches fail due to banking access than due to licensing issues.” — Alexander Rea, Fyntek

Identity Frameworks, AML, and Payment Culture: Notable Differences

U.S. identity controls and anti-money laundering (AML) measures employ methods different from those in Europe. The standard documentary onboarding from the EU does not translate directly to the U.S., where tracking social security numbers, cross-referencing credit sources, state self-exclusion lists, and location verification obligations predominate without a European equivalent.

Attempting to adapt European compliance platforms often fails, as what is sufficient for the Malta Gaming Authority is inadequate or even inappropriate in states like Michigan. Additionally, payment culture differs:

• U.S. consumers dispute card transactions at higher rates than Europeans, and the legal process favors them.
• Bank transfers (ACH), unlike in Europe, can be reversed days later: it is a promise of payment, not a secure immediate settlement.
• The expectation of instant payments has become standard even in segments where checks were the norm five years ago.

Operational design must anticipate these behaviors from the outset, incorporating appropriate buffers and risk control flows.

Strategy for Entry: Compliance and Layered Defense

Sector fragmentation, while labor-intensive, becomes a significant barrier to entry: navigating state approvals, configuring banking relationships, and adequately structuring the company are investments that a new competitor will need to replicate.

Companies that succeed in maintaining a presence in the U.S. are those that approach entry as a compliance and infrastructure project, dedicating proportionally more resources to these elements than to marketing initiatives in their early phases.

Conclusion: Sequencing and Learning for European Operators

For European operators, entering the U.S. means accepting the absence of a single 'U.S. market.' Success depends on adapting to fragmentation, anticipating that each advance in compliance, banking, and structure will be as relevant as marketing initiatives.

For more information on regulatory trends and market dynamics, visit our ongoing coverage.