ROMANIAN REGULATION
at encouraging the sale of goods or services, in which winners are selected by random draw and no payment is required to enter, except for ancillary costs such as postage or normal telephone fees. While the GO 99/2000 framework was not designed at all to focus on the gambling sector, it has at times interfered with various marketing campaigns configured by gambling operators. In theory, the distinction between gambling and sweepstakes is straightforward because gambling entails by design an entry/participation fee, while sweepstakes are fundamentally organized as free-of-charge marketing campaigns. In practice however, the Romanian legislation raises several interpretative challenges. First, the applicability of GO 99/2000 also to gambling operators is questionable. This ordinance sets out in explicit terms that it applies only to a finite number of activities listed as an annex to the act, which covers various retail and commercial sectors. However, gambling activities, coded under NACE 9200, are not listed in this annex. Moreover, article 3(3) of GO 99/2000 expressly excludes from its scope any marketing activity that is governed by special legislation and it goes without saying that GEO 77/2009 represents a special piece of legislation aimed at regulating gambling operations. Given these explicit legal texts enacted to define and regulate sweepstakes, a reasonable argument arises that GO 99/2000 should not apply at all to advertising lotteries/sweepstakes that are organized by gambling operators licensed in Romania. Nevertheless, most of the time practice beats theory. In this vein, we have seen cases where ONJN adopted a conservative approach (albeit while under previous management) and asked gambling operators to comply with GO 99/2000, even though the above argument was invoked in front of the authority. The position adopted by ONJN in the past seems to have been driven less by a technical legal interpretation and more by the regulator’s position that the regime for sweepstakes should apply without distinctions for gambling operators as well as operators from other industries. Given these precedents, certain gambling operators have opted for a prudent approach. In some cases, they have
voluntarily elected to comply with GO 99/2000 and, among others, submitted the terms and conditions of the sweepstake to be notarized in advance. It is important to emphasize that the burden imposed by the mechanical application of GO 99/2000 to the gambling sector lies more in formal requirements, rather than making it impossible to organize a sweepstake. In essence, GO 99/2000 imposes the following content and procedural requirements for advertising lotteries: • The rules/terms and conditions must be authenticated by a public notary before the start of the campaign. This is probably the most cumbersome formality. Sometimes the marketing objective is to create simple campaigns around live and dynamic events, so having to observe the notarization requirement in advance can prove difficult; • Entry must be free of charge, with no indirect or hidden costs, apart from minimal communication or postage expenses; • Promotional materials must include clear information on the number, nature, and commercial value of the prizes; • Organizers must state that the rules of the competition are available free of charge to any applicant and provide a contact address or phone number for access; • The organizer must publicly disclose the identity of winners and awarded prizes. In the recent practice of the data protection authority, certain operators (although not from the gambling industry) have been sanctioned for excessive disclosure of personal data of winners that participated in sweepstakes; • Prizes must match exactly the information provided in the promotional announcements, brochures, or terms. It at nutshell, sweepstakes should be seen as a marketing tool that are different in substance from games of chance, because one core characteristic of gambling (the participation fee) is not present. Essentially, the only similarity between the two types of activities is that in both cases consumers may win a randomly awarded prize. While these two activities should be seen as conceptually distinct, and hence subject to different legal requirements (as also happens in Romania), there is still some debate locally
PAGE 45
IMGL MAGAZINE | JUNE 2025
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker