BOS's Response to the New Regulatory Framework for Responsible Gambling and Technical Requirements in Sweden

The Swedish Online Gambling Trade Association (BOS) believes that the update proposed by the Swedish Gambling Authority (Spelinspektionen) regarding responsible gambling regulations and technical requirements continues to have interpretative issues, hindering legal certainty for operators and supervisors in Sweden. While BOS appreciates the aim to modernize and clarify the regulatory framework, it demands concrete changes to ensure uniform and evidence-based application.

Need for Clarity in Duty of Care and Regulatory Definitions

BOS acknowledges the fundamental importance of a clear regulatory framework for responsible gambling. However, it argues that the proposal from Spelinspektionen repeats previous formulations that have already generated uncertainty for both licensees and the authority itself. After six years of oversight and judicial review, neither operators nor the regulator have a clear view of the requirements entailed in the "duty of care."

Spelinspektionen's document primarily aims to codify existing obligations, but BOS emphasizes that many concepts and levels leave room for disparate interpretations. Recent experience illustrates this: in spring 2024, the authority began oversight of two operators over the same period and customer group, resulting in differing sanctions which were then judged using inconsistent criteria by administrative courts.

"The picture is that after six years, the regulation still lacks useful criteria for operators," emphasizes Gustaf Hoffstedt, Secretary General of BOS.

BOS calls for the regulation to be proportional, technologically neutral, and outcome-focused, allowing data-driven methods and individual player situations rather than formalist assessments of unique criteria.

Responsible Gambling: A Call for a Risk- and Evidence-Based Approach

BOS considers it necessary to clearly define indicators and their levels, providing the knowledge base that justifies any threshold or circumstance. For example, issues such as the monthly limit of 10,000 SEK, the hourly definition of night-time play, or the minimum six-month period for suspensions require technical justification and the possibility of uniform application by all supervised operators.

Additionally, it is requested that player assessments consist of a global and dynamic evaluation, rather than the automatic application of measures based solely on the presence of a single factor. For BOS, documenting both the interventions made and the analyses that determine when not to intervene is key to effective auditing. It also recommends adapting indicators to context: "playing multiple times a day" does not inherently indicate risk in sports betting during events like the World Cup.

Recommendations for Practices and Documentation

• Clarity in weighing circumstances and their levels, with explicit criteria indicating when behavior should not be considered excessive.
• An obligation to document evaluations that conclude not to act, ensuring transparency for regulatory audits.
• Adjust parameters according to user history and the specific betting product.
• Justified review of limits or measures (e.g., suspensions, bans) and protection of player integrity in accordance with data legislation.

Technical Requirements and Regulatory Coordination

BOS warns that proposals for responsible gambling and technical requirements (Spelinspektionen, dnr 21Si540 and 25Si946) must be evaluated together, as they affect the same processes and concepts. It criticizes that the impact assessment does not analyze cumulative effects or the combined costs on operators.

Among the reviewed demands include:

• Coordination of the entry into force of both regulations.
• Clarification of common processes, such as automated session termination after inactivity (proposed in both the responsible gambling and technical requirements chapters).
• Joint evaluation of costs and analysis regarding player channeling (migration between regulated and unregulated operators).

Operational Measures and Effectiveness Evaluation

BOS supports the need for:

• Ongoing training for staff, tailored to roles and identified risks.
• Reliable and technologically neutral authentication controls at each login.
• Deposit, loss, and time limits to be reduced only after an evaluation and individualized communication to the player.
• Provision of self-assessment testing tools by independent entities.

Regarding certain specific measures, BOS considers the limitation of 60 spins in the autoplay function for slots excessive, arguing that there is no empirical support for this threshold and requesting a review based on evidence and analysis of its impact on user experience and channeling towards unlicensed operators.

Effect on Experience and Channeling

BOS's analysis warns that generalized measures (such as recurring messaging, frequent automatic closures, or systematic confirmations) can create unjustified friction for players who do not present risks, potentially incentivizing migration to unregulated operators without the same safeguards. It insists that the impact assessment should include cumulative effects on user experience and the attractiveness of the licensed offering.

Data Protection and User Integrity

BOS emphasizes that the proposal involves ongoing treatment of information and behavior of all users, hence requiring a detailed analysis of the balance between effective protection and respect for privacy, a point it considers insufficiently addressed in the impact assessment.

Collaboration and Future Recommendations

BOS proposes the creation of a recurring working group between Spelinspektionen, operators, support organizations, and experts to identify better indicators, adjust regulations, and share evidence regarding the real effectiveness of each measure. It also requests reasonable implementation timelines to allow operators to effectively adapt their systems.

Conclusion

For BOS, the success of Swedish regulation depends on its clarity, proportionality, and focus on actual risks, achieved through aligned and evidence-based oversight. It warns that increasing protection requires the licensed market to remain attractive to low-risk consumers, preventing migration to less regulated options.