18+Play responsibly Spelpaus.se Stödlinjen Spelinspektionen
Find sister sites
Sister sites
Networks
Guides
Responsible gambling News Find sister sites
Regulation

Bet365 loses court appeal – fined SEK 44 million in Sweden

Bet365 loses court appeal – fined SEK 44 million in Sweden

Sweden’s Administrative Court of Appeal in Jönköping has rejected the appeals filed by Hillside Gaming and Hillside Sports, the two companies that operate bet365 in Sweden. The ruling, announced by regulator Spelinspektionen on 14 October, confirms sanction fees totalling SEK 44 million for failures in duty of care and deposit-limit rules.

What has changed

The rulings concern two Swedish licensed entities within the Hillside group. The decisions concern Hillside (Gaming) and Hillside (Sports), which according to the court failed to meet their duty of care toward players between 2019 and 2022, and also violated mandatory deposit-limit rules. The court upheld the warnings issued to both entities and confirmed sanction fees of SEK 4 million against the gaming unit and SEK 40 million against the sports betting business.

At the core of the case is that customers could, for a long period, select a “no limit” option instead of setting an actual daily, weekly or monthly deposit cap. Spelinspektionen found a hidden technical ceiling of SEK 500 million, but ruled that a limit set so high did not meet the legal obligation to set an actual, meaningful deposit limit. The investigation was based on how the companies handled their highest-loss customers in autumn 2021, examining the ten customers with the highest losses during a two-month period between October and December 2021, reviewing five profiles in greater detail.

The court also found that interventions often came too late. The rulings found that Hillside depended too heavily on automated communications, including pop-ups, emails, and spend reminders, and that the company delayed the introduction of access restrictions even though players continued to display risky behaviour. The original fines were considerably higher. Spelinspektionen’s board issued the original decisions on 24 April 2023: a warning and a SEK 65 million penalty fee against Hillside (Sports) ENC, and a warning and a SEK 14 million penalty fee against Hillside (Gaming) ENC. The Administrative Court in Linköping reduced the amounts in summer 2024, and the appeals court has now confirmed those lower levels.

What it means for you

If you hold an account with bet365, this ruling doesn’t change your gambling directly. The licence stands, even though Spelinspektionen considered a tougher measure. The regulator judged the failures serious and systematic enough that a licence review, including revocation, was on the table, but limited the measure to the penalty fees and further guidance because the companies implemented corrective actions during and after the audit. Going forward, stricter checks will apply to large losses. Players losing more than SEK 10,000 in a month will trigger a manual review, with earlier checks for young adults aged 18 to 24, vulnerable groups and returning self-excluded players.

Remember that any welcome bonus only applies at your first gaming occasion with a licence holder, regardless of which brand you play under. For more on this, see our guide on Swedish bonus rules. If gambling starts to feel like a problem, help is available via Stödlinjen, and you can exclude yourself from all licensed gambling through Spelpaus.

The bigger picture

The case has run since 2021 and is one of the more drawn-out enforcement matters in Swedish gambling regulation. It also fits into a wider pattern of Spelinspektionen’s supervisory work. Bet365 is Sweden’s fourth-largest operator according to the Blask Index, behind ATG, Svenska Spel and an offshore operator, and the ruling adds it to a list of Spelinspektionen enforcement targets over the past year that includes Betsson, Mr Green, ATG and Kanon Gaming. That the regulator chose fines and warnings rather than revoking the licence shows Swedish courts continue to weigh the severity of a breach against a company’s corrective action, rather than defaulting to the harshest sanction available.

Sources

Latest news

All news →