Swedish court overturns LeoVegas fine for alleged responsible gambling breaches

The Administrative Court in Linköping has quashed a March 2025 ruling by the Swedish Gambling Authority (Spelinspektionen) that had fined Malta-based online operator LeoVegas, operating as Roar Vegas locally.

The fine – SEK8 million ($852,867) – was handed down for purported violations of Sweden’s Gambling Act duty of care provisions. 

But the court found that evidence against LeoVegas was unambiguous. The ruling, issued on 12 June, fully reversed the earlier regulatory sanction following an extensive review of the evidence and legal arguments presented by the operator.

The original dispute

On 25 March 2025, Spelinspektionen concluded a supervisory review covering the first quarter of 2024 (1 January-31 March) focused on Roar Vegas’ responsible-gaming procedures.

The authority sampled 12 customer accounts, specifically selecting the highest-loss players within two age categories: 18-24 years and 25+ years. 

Three accounts in particular drew the authority’s concern. These all had unusually high monthly deposit limits (between SEK100,000 and SEK300,000) and indicators suggesting excessive gambling activity, including rapid deposits and losses, and lengthy session durations.

Spelinspektionen alleged that Roar had failed to provide “sufficient assistance” to these three customers. The regulator acknowledged that the operator had eventually implemented measures that lowered gambling activity levels. However, it determined that these interventions were tardy and inadequate, constituting a serious breach. 

After a proportionality assessment, Spelinspektionen imposed a formal reprimand alongside the SEK8 million administrative fine.

Roar Vegas’s appeal and defence

Roar Vegas contested the ruling. As a defence, it pointed to its comprehensive monitoring system, which has both automated alerts and manual follow-ups intended to detect and curb problematic gambling. 

The operator maintained it had enforced deposit limits and suspensions on the concerned customers. They also insisted that they had adopted a cautious, voluntary approach to behavioural interventions before escalating restrictions.

Roar further argued that certain indicators relied on by the regulator, like long log-in durations and rapid losses following deposits, were behavioural traits common among sports bettors and should not be automatically equated with problem gambling. 

In fact, a recent survey of Swedish adults covering the last quarter of a century, found that the proportion of Swedish adults classified as problem gamblers decreased from 2.2% in 2008-09 to 1.3% in 2021. This equates to a reduction in problem gamblers of approximately 57,000 individuals, representing a 35% reduction during the timeframe.  

The company also highlighted a degree of legal uncertainty prevailing before the 1 June 2024 legislative amendments, particularly regarding the processing of personal health and financial data integral to responsible-gaming assessments.

Court’s analysis 

In its judgment (case no. 3061-25), the Administrative Court in Linköping ruled that the regulatory decision lacked the requisite clarity and unambiguous evidence necessary to justify sanctioning Roar Vegas. The court’s key considerations included:

• The sampled accounts reflected high-risk profiles, yet only three customers exhibited rapid, significant losses alongside high deposit limits.
• Roar’s deployment of automatic notifications, mandatory deposit limits and account suspensions, combined with manual follow-up, successfully reduced gambling activity for the consumers in question.
• Although acknowledging that some interventions might have been introduced sooner, the court found such delays insufficiently serious to meet the statutory threshold for a breach that warranted penalising. Notably, some automated alerts were issued promptly, even as early as the day after first deposits.
• The court agreed with Roar’s argument that the duty of care does not specify exact timetables for intervention, recognising that licence holders must balance privacy, voluntary intervention and escalatory measures. Given the round-the-clock nature of online gambling, a reasonable time standard applies, which favoured Roar in this case.
• Detailed records provided by Roar, including action plans and system enhancements, undermined the regulator’s assertion of a clear breach.