Key Moments:
- BOS releases a comparative analysis of gambling regulations in Sweden and Denmark, conducted by Nordic Legal.
- The report identifies higher and steadier channelisation in Denmark, though recent threats to this position are noted.
- Sweden is unlikely to achieve a 90 percent channelisation target without significant regulatory reforms.
Overview of the Comparative Report
The Swedish Trade Association for Online Gambling (BOS) has published a comprehensive study comparing Swedish and Danish gambling regulations. Independent law firm Nordic Legal executed the analysis, which examines the effectiveness of rules governing the gambling markets in both countries. In addition to the comparative findings, the report puts forward 19 recommendations addressed to the Swedish government and the Swedish Gambling Authority (SGA).
Findings on Channelisation and Policy Effectiveness
According to the study, Denmark’s regulatory framework has demonstrated greater success in achieving the country’s gambling policy objectives. Specifically, Denmark has historically maintained higher and more consistent channelisation. However, the report observes that recent developments could be threatening the stability of this position.
The authors note that Sweden is unlikely to meet the ambitious 90 percent channelisation goal in the absence of major reforms. They suggest that implementing the report’s recommendations may help raise channelling rates, which are a critical indicator of a robust, well-functioning gambling market.
Assessment of Current Regulatory Approaches
While policymakers in Sweden and other jurisdictions have questioned the focus on channelisation due to challenges in achieving high targets, the report emphasizes the importance of maintaining it as a key benchmark. The authors argue that punitive measures alone are insufficient to address channelisation issues. Instead, they advocate for a more attractive licensed gambling market, pointing to less restrictive bonus and loyalty regulations as potential improvements for Sweden.
Examples of repressive measures discussed include ISP blocking and payment blocking. These, the report concludes, are not enough unless regulatory conditions allow licensed operators to compete effectively.
Cultural Contrasts in Regulation and Enforcement
The comparative analysis also explores differences in regulatory culture between Sweden and Denmark. Interviews with licensees reveal a perception of the Swedish Gambling Authority as adopting a punitive and fear-driven approach, whereas the Danish model is described as more dialogue-oriented. The Danish system’s use of a graduated escalation ladder for addressing rule violations is cited as a positive feature, in contrast to Sweden’s tendency to apply the severest sanctions immediately.
BOS Perspective and Guidance for Policymakers
“We hope that the report will be a useful tool and encourage Sweden to find inspiration in several of the measures and approaches that have been so successfully implemented in Denmark. Some of them are strictly rule based, such as how loyalty programs are regulated. Some are more difficult to approach and of a cultural nature, but just as important, and are connected to the policymaker’s attitude to the industry it is supervising”, says Gustaf Hoffstedt, Secretary General of BOS.
“Hopefully, this report can inspire policymakers in Sweden to choose the path of regulation that strengthens the licensed gambling market and as a consequence strengthen consumer protection, as neighbouring Denmark has successfully proven is possible,” Gustaf Hoffstedt concludes.
Summary Table: Key Differences in Regulatory Approaches
| Aspect | Sweden | Denmark |
|---|---|---|
| Channelisation Rate | Below 90% target | Higher and more stable, though under recent threat |
| Regulatory Culture | Punitive, culture of fear, harsh sanctions | Dialogue-oriented, escalation ladder for violations |
| Bonus and Loyalty Regulation | Rigid | Less restrictive |
| Recent Recommendations | Calls for significant reform to boost channelisation | Current system viewed more favorably, but stability now uncertain |
- Author
Daniel Williams
