ROMANIAN REGULATION
In addition, unlike games of chance where the prize structure is flexible and demand-responsive, raffles require detailed and fixed prize planning in advance. This makes them less adaptable for dynamic or short-term marketing campaigns. As a result, while the gambling framework in Romania was reformed almost ten years ago, no license for raffles has been awarded to date, according to information published on the ONJN website. While the law clearly allows this gambling product to be offered under the appropriate license, the combination of limited profitability and significant upfront costs has deterred market entry. This category remains regulated in theory but inactive in practice (even though it may have huge potential and adoption among Romanian consumers). New and emerging legislation in Romania New obligations for B2B licensees In April 2024, a new amendment to GEO 77/2009 introduced an important compliance requirement for B2B providers. Through the entry into force of Law no. 107/2024, a new paragraph – article 1(5^2) – was added to GEO 77/2009. This provision imposes a direct prohibition on Class II (B2B) license holders, preventing them from providing services to operators that: • Do not hold a Romanian Class I gambling license, and • Allow access to gambling services offered on their online platforms to individuals located in Romania, or to Romanian citizens who do not have fiscal residency in another country. This legislative amendment marks a significant tightening of control in relation to the black market (that unfortunately has grown significantly in Romania in recent years). The rule effectively seeks to limit not just end-user access to unlicensed gambling, but also the backend infrastructure that enables it. The legislative text requires that Class II licensees implement technical measures to prevent such access. An order of the ONJN President was expected to provide the specific technical standards to be applied, with a legal deadline of 90 days from the law’s entry into force. That deadline – late July 2024 – has passed without the adoption of the order. Although a
draft order was published on ONJN’s website shortly after the deadline, it was never finalized or enacted. In the absence of formal implementing rules, in May 2025 ONJN issued a press release reiterating that the legal prohibition introduced under article 1(5^2) is fully enforceable and that licensees must apply “any available technical measures” to comply. The communication also underlined that failure to observe this prohibition constitutes a sanctionable offence, punishable by a fine of up to RON 200,000 (approximately €40,000), confiscation of the revenues obtained, and, most significantly, mandatory revocation of the Class II license. Some Class II licensees are reportedly applying geo-blocking measures to restrict access from Romanian IP addresses. However, at this stage, it is unclear whether ONJN will consider such measures sufficient. The authority has announced its intention to send formal requests for information to Class II licensees, requiring them to disclose what technical solutions they have implemented. The response to these requests will likely serve as an informal benchmark for the market. Only after this data is collected and reviewed will stakeholders gain a clearer understanding of which measures are considered compliant and what additional safeguards, if any, may be expected. This approach – regulating through retrospective evaluation and case-by-case review – might generate certain compliance uncertainty for B2B suppliers operating in the Romanian market. In the absence of clear technical specifications, suppliers must balance operational feasibility with regulatory risk, and ensure they maintain proper records of the measures adopted and the rationale behind them. (New) self-exclusion regime Self-exclusion from games of chance has been the most debated topic in the Romanian market in 2024 and continues to be so in 2025. As a brief legislative recap, in case of online activities, the legislation imposed (and still imposes) obligations on operators to provide self-exclusion features for players since 2016. These self-exclusion options, however, apply only at the individual level of each online operator and there is no sharing of data regarding vulnerable players with other online operators or the retail sector. On the other hand, the legal
PAGE 47
IMGL MAGAZINE | JUNE 2025
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker