Gambling companies that were already fined in 2019

While online gambling continues to gain in popularity, the companies providing the services are walking an ever-narrowing legal tightrope. The regulations governing the provision of gambling are extremely complicated, made trickier since they are laid down in different forms in various countries and, in the case of America, even separate states as well.

No gambling company goes out to deliberately breach rules like allowing underage people to play on their sites, but they will push the interpretation of some rules as much as they can to steal a march on the competition while remaining compliant.

However, inevitably this leads to them occasionally going a step too far. And when that happens, the regulatory authorities flex their financial muscles and impose hefty fines. As we’ll see, online-only companies providing gambling services are increasingly getting on the wrong side of the law.

The breaches are wide-ranging. In April 2019 PointsBet in Australia was fined Aus $20,000 for offering a sign-up bonus in an advert that appeared next to its app in the Apple App Store. The advert enticed new customers by saying: “All 40+ Metro races run 2^nd up to $100 back.” The New South Wales Betting and Racing Act forbids marketing that “offers an inducement to participate, or participate frequently, in any gambling activity (including an inducement to open a betting account)”.

PointsBet was not alone; in the preceding weeks, Australian operators Sportschamps and Sportsbet had fallen foul of similar advertising breaches.

Also in April, PokerStars was fined by gambling regulators in New Jersey in the US after its sports betting arm, Bet Stars, accepted bets on New Jersey college basketball teams, which was in violation of the state’s gambling code. The company was fined $10,000 for the code breach, which seems to have been an oversight from the company because it would have been a low-revenue book. According to filed documents, PokerStars accepted 216 wagers on a game involving Rutgers and Eastern Michigan University totalling more than $2,700, plus a single bet on a game between Monmouth University and the University of Pennsylvania.

The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (NJDGE) fined GVC Holdings’ bwin.party $81,000 for allowing self-excluded players to gamble on its platform. It claimed a number of players lost $41,759.49 despite trying to self-exclude themselves. In January, the NJDGE fine Rush Street Interactive $30,000 for allowing underage players to access igaming services.

Perhaps the biggest fines of the year have been from the Dutch gaming authority, Kansspelautoriteit aimed at casino operators offering non-skill games. It slapped Gibraltar-based Onisac Ltd, the company behind casino.com with a 450,000 euros fine. The huge sum began with 200,000 for being found to offer games of chance, which is not allowed in the Netherlands. This was doubled because it was a repeat offence, having already been penalised back in 2013. The remaining 50,000 was because the company allegedly charged unreasonable admin costs to inactive players. It’s reported that casino.com is no longer available to Dutch players.

Kansspelautoriteit also hit Malta-based Casumo with a 310,000 euros fine for wrongly targeting consumers in the Netherlands. Two issues were highlighted: the fact that the live chat function was available in Dutch, and that players were being offered Holland’s most popular online transaction portal as a payment option. Other operators to be hit by Dutch fines include 1xBet, William Hill, MRG and Corona Ltd.

Sweden’s new gambling laws only began in January, but already the Swedish gambling authority, Spelinspektionen has fined two operators for self-exclusion violations. Genesis Global Ltd was fined the equivalent of $430,000, while Paf Consulting Corporation was hit with $10,000. Genesis operated multiple Swedish-facing casinos, including Casino Joy, Casino Cruise and Vegas Hero.

While countries like Sweden are new to regulation, others like Belarus are next, with its own regulatory framework currently under discussion.

Meanwhile, Betway is facing a fine equivalent to £110,000 in Kenya, where the competition watchdog claims the operator did not divulge a change in ownership of its partner, Bluejay Limited, in 2015. The country’s Competition Act stipulates that sales of shares or assets that result in a change of ownership must be approved by the Competition Authority.