Swedish Court Cancels SEK 8 Million Fine Against LeoVegas Unit
LeoVegas Subsidiary Roar Vegas Wins Court Appeal – Swedish Fine of SEK 8 Million Cancelled
Key Takeaways
- The Administrative Court in Linkoping cancelled a SEK 8 million fine against LeoVegas owned Roar Vegas.
- Swedish regulator Spelinspektionen had accused the operator of breaching duty of care rules for three high risk players.
- The court ruled that the regulator did not provide clear and unambiguous evidence of a breach.
- The case concerned customer activity between 1 January and 31 March 2024 and focused on 12 high loss accounts.
Court Overturns SEK 8 Million Penalty
The Administrative Court in Linkoping has annulled a SEK 8 million administrative fine imposed on Roar Vegas, a company within the LeoVegas group. The decision, issued on 12 June in case no. 3061-25, reverses a sanction that Sweden gambling regulator Spelinspektionen had announced on 25 March 2025.
Spelinspektionen had issued both a reprimand and a financial penalty after reviewing customer activity from the first quarter of 2024. The regulator argued that Roar Vegas failed to meet its duty of care obligations under the Sweden Gambling Act in relation to three players considered to be at high risk of gambling harm.
The court, however, concluded that the authority did not meet the evidentiary standard required to justify a financial sanction. It found that the alleged shortcomings were not supported by sufficiently clear and unambiguous proof.
Regulator Focused on High Loss and Young Players
The enforcement action followed a review of 12 customer accounts. According to the case details, Spelinspektionen selected the highest loss players from two age groups: 18 to 24 and 25 and older. Three accounts were central to the regulator case.
The authority highlighted several indicators. These included high monthly deposit limits ranging between SEK 100,000 and SEK 300,000, rapid deposits followed by quick losses, and long playing sessions. Spelinspektionen argued that these patterns demonstrated elevated risk and required stronger or earlier intervention by the operator.
The regulator position was that Roar Vegas had acted too late and that its measures were insufficient in scope and timing to meet the duty of care requirements set out in the law.
Operator Pointed to Automated Alerts and Account Restrictions
Roar Vegas did not dispute that the reviewed accounts showed signs of risk. Instead, the company argued that it had implemented and applied a structured safer gambling system.
According to the court record, the operator relied on automated alerts, manual reviews, deposit limits and account suspensions. It also presented action plans, internal documentation and follow up notes to demonstrate how it responded to risky behavior.
The court noted that in some cases automated alerts were triggered as early as the day after the first deposits. It also acknowledged that certain measures reduced gambling activity among the customers reviewed.
Roar Vegas further argued that some of the indicators cited by the regulator do not automatically prove gambling harm. The company stated that long log in times and rapid losses after deposits can also occur in sports betting without necessarily indicating problematic behavior.
In addition, the operator referred to legal uncertainty before regulatory changes that took effect on 1 June 2024. This uncertainty concerned the extent to which operators could process personal health and financial data for responsible gambling checks.
Court Applied Reasonable Time Standard
In its assessment, the Administrative Court emphasized that the Sweden Gambling Act requires license holders to balance several factors. Operators must act when gambling behavior appears risky, but they must also consider privacy rules and the voluntary nature of certain player protection tools.
The court observed that online gambling operates continuously and that the law does not define exact response times for every situation. As a result, it applied what it described as a reasonable time standard rather than a fixed timetable for interventions.
While the court agreed that certain interventions might have occurred earlier, it concluded that any delay did not reach the threshold necessary to justify a financial penalty. The absence of clear and unambiguous evidence of a breach ultimately led to the cancellation of the fine.
The original penalty of SEK 8 million corresponded to approximately 852,867 US dollars.
Implications for Swedish Duty of Care Enforcement
The ruling addresses how duty of care provisions under Swedish gambling law are interpreted in practice. These rules require operators to monitor player behavior and intervene when there are signs of excessive or harmful gambling.
According to the court findings, enforcement actions of this kind must be supported by detailed and persuasive evidence. In this case, the documentation provided by Roar Vegas regarding alerts, system updates and individual account measures weakened the regulator claim that a clear violation had occurred.
The decision provides a judicial reference point regarding the evidentiary threshold required before administrative penalties can be imposed for alleged duty of care breaches.
Our Assessment
The Administrative Court in Linkoping cancelled the SEK 8 million fine against Roar Vegas after determining that Spelinspektionen did not present sufficiently clear evidence of a breach of duty of care rules. The case centered on 12 high loss accounts from the first quarter of 2024, with particular focus on three players. The court acknowledged that some interventions could have been earlier but found that this did not justify a financial sanction under the applicable legal standard.
We have imposed strict editorial guidelines on ourselves and explain our testing methods openly and comprehensively. We also communicate transparently how our work is financed. This site may contain tracking links, but this does not influence our objective view in any way.
