Swedish court overturns penalty against LeoVegas following duty of care review

The Administrative Court in Linköping has overturned a March 2025 decision by the Swedish Gambling Authority (Spelinspektionen) that imposed a SEK 8 million ($852,867) penalty on Malta-based online gambling operator LeoVegas, which operates in Sweden under the Roar Vegas brand.

The regulator had issued the sanction over alleged violations of the duty of care requirements contained in Sweden’s Gambling Act. However, in a ruling dated June 12, the court concluded that the evidence presented did not provide a sufficiently clear basis for imposing penalties on the operator.

As a result, the court annulled both the reprimand and the accompanying fine.

Review of customer activity triggered investigation

The case originated from a supervisory review completed by Spelinspektionen on March 25, 2025. The examination covered the period from January 1 through March 31, 2024, and focused on the responsible gambling controls used by Roar Vegas.

As part of the review, the regulator examined 12 customer accounts. The sample consisted of players with the highest losses across two age groups: 18-24 and 25 and older.

According to the authority, three of those accounts raised particular concerns. The customers had monthly deposit limits ranging from SEK100,000 to SEK300,000 and displayed gambling patterns that included rapid deposits, substantial losses, and extended gaming sessions.

Spelinspektionen alleged that Roar Vegas had failed to provide “sufficient assistance” to those customers. While the authority acknowledged that the operator eventually introduced measures that reduced gambling activity, it concluded that the actions were implemented too late and did not satisfy regulatory requirements. Following a proportionality assessment, the regulator issued a formal warning and the SEK8 million administrative penalty.

Operator challenges findings

LeoVegas appealed the decision, arguing that its responsible gambling framework included automated monitoring tools and manual reviews designed to identify and address potentially harmful gambling behaviour.

The company stated that deposit restrictions and account suspensions had been applied to the customers identified by the regulator. It also argued that its intervention process relied initially on voluntary engagement before additional restrictions were introduced.

Roar Vegas further disputed the interpretation of several behavioral indicators cited by Spelinspektionen. The operator maintained that factors such as extended log-in periods and rapid losses after deposits are common among sports bettors and should not automatically be regarded as evidence of gambling-related harm.

The company also pointed to uncertainty surrounding the regulatory environment before legislative amendments that took effect on June 1, 2024. According to the operator, questions remained regarding the use of personal financial and health-related information in responsible gambling assessments.

Court examines threshold for sanctions

In its judgment, case number 3061-25, the Administrative Court assessed whether the evidence supported Spelinspektionen’s conclusion that Roar Vegas had breached its duty of care obligations.

The court noted that the reviewed accounts presented elevated risk indicators, but only three customers combined substantial losses with high deposit limits and rapid gambling activity.

Judges also examined the operator’s use of automated alerts, mandatory deposit limits, account suspensions and manual follow-up procedures. According to the ruling, those measures contributed to lower gambling activity among the customers involved.

While the court acknowledged that certain interventions could potentially have occurred earlier, it determined that any delays did not reach the level required to establish a sanctionable violation under the Gambling Act. The judgment also noted that some automated notifications were sent promptly, including instances where alerts were issued the day after a customer’s initial deposit.

Duty of care interpretation central to decision

The court accepted the operator’s position that Sweden’s duty of care requirements do not prescribe specific deadlines for intervention. The judgment stated that license holders must balance considerations including customer privacy, voluntary engagement and the escalation of protective measures.

Given the continuous nature of online gambling services, the court concluded that a standard of reasonable response time should apply. In this case, that interpretation favored Roar Vegas.

The court further cited documentation submitted by the operator, including records of action plans and system developments, as evidence that weakened the regulator’s assertion that a clear breach had occurred.

As a result of the ruling, the March 2025 sanction against LeoVegas has been set aside in full.