Sweden’s licensing regime, enforced by Spelinspektionen, is increasingly flanked by private-sector blacklists such as Casino Guru’s. This dual enforcement raises sharp questions: are blacklists a legitimate consumer tool or a parallel sanction that undermines regulatory due process under EU law?
How Sweden Polarised the Nordic Approach to Offshore Gambling
When Sweden re-regulated its gambling market on 1 January 2019 under the Spelinspektionen Act (SFS 2018:1138), it set a Nordic benchmark. Unlike Denmark, which had already licensed operators since 2012, Sweden opted for a strict licensing model that explicitly bans unlicensed activity targeting Swedish players. Offshore casinos ignoring this are met with payment blocking orders and, since July 2023, administrative fines up to ten percent of annual turnover.
Finland remains the outlier: it still operates a state monopoly (Veikkaus) and does not licence foreign operators. Norway, through Lotteritilsynet, uses payment blocking and DNS filtering, but lacks a full licensing system. Sweden’s hybrid—open licensing paired with aggressive enforcement—has made it the most litigious Nordic market for offshore operators. Yet enforcement gaps persist, as players continue to access unlicensed sites via VPNs and alternative payment methods.
Spelinspektionen’s Toolbox: Payment Blocks and Licence Revocations
Spelinspektionen’s primary weapon is the payment blocking order, issued under Chapter 16, Section 5 of the Gambling Act. Since 2019, it has ordered payment intermediaries to block transactions to over 50 unlicensed domains. The regulator also maintains a public warning list of unlicensed operators, which it updates monthly. In 2023, it revoked the licence of a Malta-based operator for offering games not covered by its permit—a move that directly referenced the CJEU’s 2023 ruling in Case C-148/20, which confirmed that EU member states may restrict cross-border gambling for reasons of public interest, even if it violates free movement of services.
However, administrative action is slow: each blocking order requires lengthy inquiry and legal review. In response, private watchdog organisations have stepped in. Casino Guru, a global casino database, maintains a “blacklist” of operators flagged for unethical practices or lack of valid licensing. While Spelinspektionen’s actions are binding and backed by law, Casino Guru’s list is editorial—but for consumers, the practical effect can be similar: a site labelled as dangerous is avoided.
- Spelinspektionen: 18 payment blocking orders issued in 2023 (source: Spelinspektionen annual report)
- Casino Guru: 45+ Swedish-facing operators blacklisted as of Q1 2024, many overlapping with Spelinspektionen’s warnings
- Payment intermediary compliance rate: >90% within 30 days of order (Spelinspektionen data)
Casino Guru’s Blacklist: Consumer Shield or Extra-Legal Sanction?
Casino Guru’s “blacklist” is a database of operators that have either lost their licence, been flagged by players, or refused to resolve disputes through the site’s mediation service. Unlike a regulatory withdrawal, this blacklist carries no legal force. A site blacklisted by Casino Guru can still operate unless a regulator such as Spelinspektionen revokes its licence. In practice, many blacklisted casinos are unlicensed in Sweden, but some hold valid licences from jurisdictions like the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA).
The distinction matters legally. In May 2023, Spelinspektionen warned against two MGA-licensed operators that had not applied for Swedish licences but were serving Swedish players. Casino Guru’s blacklist included both—but for different reasons: one for failing to pay player winnings, the other for misleading bonus terms. Here, private and public enforcement align, but the legal basis differs radically. Spelinspektionen acts under public law; Casino Guru under contractual and reputation-based pressure.
Critics argue that blacklists can overreach by penalising operators that are fully legal under EU home-state licensing, before any Swedish court has ruled. Proponents counter that consumer safety demands immediate action, regardless of administrative delays. This creates a tension that the EU has not yet resolved.
Nordic Fragmentation: Denmark’s Flexibility vs. Sweden’s Hard Line
Denmark offers a contrasting model. Spillemyndigheden, the Danish regulator, uses a voluntary payment blocking system and does not maintain a public blacklist of unlicensed operators. Instead, it targets illegal advertising and relies on industry self-regulation through the Danish Online Gambling Association (DOGA). The result is lower enforcement costs but higher market share for unlicensed casinos (estimated at 15-20% in Denmark vs. 10-12% in Sweden according to 2023 studies by Copenhagen Economics).
Sweden’s approach, by contrast, relies on a combination of compulsory licensing, high taxation (18% on gross gaming revenue), and aggressive enforcement. The table below summarises the key differences:
| Feature | Sweden | Denmark | Norway |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal model | Licensing + blocking | Licensing + self-regulation | Monopoly + filtering |
| Public blacklist | Yes (Spelinspektionen) | No | Yes (Lotteritilsynet) |
| Private blacklist presence | High (Casino Guru, etc.) | Moderate | Low |
| EU compatibility | Frequently challenged | Less contested | Formally compliant (monopoly) |
The fragmentation complicates cross-border enforcement. An operator blacklisted by Casino Guru in Sweden may continue serving Danish players without issue, creating a patchwork that savvy consumers can exploit—and that regulators find hard to coordinate.
What the EU Court Rulings Mean for Private Blacklists
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has repeatedly held that member states may restrict cross-border gambling only under strict proportionality (Cases C-316/07, C-409/06). Private blacklists like Casino Guru’s fall outside this framework: they are not state actions and therefore are not subject to EU law’s proportionality test. However, they can be sued under defamation or unfair competition law if they wrongly label a licensed operator as illegal.
In 2022, the UK Gambling Commission warned that “blacklists produced by third parties can be inaccurate and may lead to consumer harm if players rely on incomplete information.” The European Commission has not yet issued guidelines on private enforcement lists, but the emerging consensus among legal scholars is that they are a stopgap, not a long-term solution. Sweden’s Spelinspektionen has welcomed private blacklists as complementary, but warns they cannot replace regulatory oversight.
The real test will come if a blacklisted operator challenges the practice in court. In such a case, the balance between free speech, consumer protection, and the right to conduct business under EU law will be scrutinised. For now, the Swedish market remains a laboratory where public and private enforcement co-exist—often uneasily.
Conclusion: Two Regulators in One Market
Sweden’s regulatory model is pioneering but stressed. The combination of Spelinspektionen’s legal powers and private initiatives like Casino Guru’s blacklist creates a dual enforcement system that is more robust than any other Nordic country’s, but also more legally contested. As long as payment blockages remain slow and territorial disputes with the MGA persist (three Swedish orders were appealed to the EU level in 2023), private blacklists will fill a gap. However, their lack of due process and inconsistent criteria risk confusing consumers and penalising operators that are fully compliant in other jurisdictions.
For investors and policymakers, the key question is whether the Nordic model converges toward Sweden’s hard line or Denmark’s softer touch. The answer will depend on how the next CJEU ruling interprets the balance between consumer protection and free movement of services—and on whether private blacklists gain or lose legal standing.
Sources
- Spelinspektionen – Swedish Gambling Authority
- Casino Guru blacklist and operator database
- Malta Gaming Authority – regulatory decisions on licences
- Court of Justice of the European Union – case law on gambling
- EUR-Lex – EU legislation including Services Directive (2006/123/EC)
- UK Gambling Commission – guidance on third-party blacklists
- Copenhagen Economics – study on unlicensed gambling market share (2023)
- varningssignaler — independent, source-based overview of the Swedish gambling market.
Marcus Webb is Politics & Public Affairs Editor at PublicReport, covering Westminster, Whitehall, devolved governments, public policy and UK political affairs.