“It is disappointing and illogical that online casinos will continue to be unlawful”

Which are the bill’s negative aspects? In your opinion, which are the questionable or controversial points?
There are many areas where the law is flawed or could at the least be seriously improved upon. For instance, no fixed odds betting will be permitted on horseracing in order to protect PMU, the incumbent monopoly, from proper competition; there is a right for sports which means they have to receive payment and give approval before companies can offer betting on their sports; and the levels of taxation and a cap on the rates of return to customers mean that French consumers, especially with regard to sports betting, will receive relatively poor value. It is also disappointing and illogical that online casinos will continue to be unlawful. 

Which points should the bill include or remove to adhere to EU rules?
We believe that the French government has put unwarranted restrictions on gambling operators already established and licensed in other EU jurisdictions in order to maximize tax returns rather than to protect consumers. This manifests itself in areas such as the requirement to have certain corporate officials domiciled in France and mirror servers located in France. Measures such as this effectively give a first mover advantage to the existing monopolies and there is not even an indication of anything that acknowledges or respects the Treaty right to be able to provide a free movement of services across EU borders.

Which will be Francaise Des Jeux and Pari Mutuel Urbain’s role in this scenario?
As they already have established, French markets they will have a built in advantage and, again, the government has also moved to protect the PMU’s position further by not allowing fixed odds or other betting on horseracing. There is absolutely no regulatory reason to make this move and it is therefore purely protectionist in nature. However, both are commercially driven and it is to be expected that they will diversify into other areas if they can to take advantage of new opportunities.   

What does the private sector demand?
The bill has now passed into law and we have to be pragmatic and deal with that situation.  We would of course hope that improvements could have been made during the passage of the legislation but it would be unrealistic to expect any fundamental change now and we do not expect that the European Commission will press for any noticeable changes either. In general our preference is to work with regulators and legislators. Making demands of them is not a constructive approach and instead we expect that as with Italy, for instance, experience will prove that many of the fears initially expressed by politicians and others prove to be unfounded and that some of the regulatory restrictions which are currently so onerous might be relaxed.

Which are the next steps?    
We have not ruled out a legal challenge to the implementation of the new law, but that would not be our first preference anyway. The focus will switch to all of the regulations which still need to be finalized by ARJEL (the regulator in France) as part of the licensing process. They will have a huge effect on the viability of businesses looking to base themselves in France, but they are not yet all available and so it is prudent to reserve judgement until they are. France is potentially a very important market and the private sector gambling industry will want to be a part of that if it at all can.