FINLAND MARKET REPORT
Introduction The landscape of online gambling in Finland is poised for significant transformation as discussions surrounding the long-standing state monopoly intensify. Currently Finland has one of the last remaining gambling monopolies in Europe and only the state-owned gambling operator can operate lawfully. Private operators offering gambling services online or in person are excluded from the Finnish market, meaning that licenses to provide B2C or B2B gambling services in Finland are currently not granted at all. Although the Finnish gambling monopoly has been strongly defended over the years, developments in the igaming sector enhanced by digitalisation have shifted the political approach, opening up debates on alternative options for managing gambling in the country. It is hoped these alternatives will generate more income than the state monopoly, reduce unregulated gambling, and potentially reduce negative effects on public health. The Finnish gambling reform officially began in October 2023, when a working group in the Ministry of the Interior started drafting a government proposal to reform the existing state- owned monopoly system operated by Veikkaus Oy (“Veikkaus”). This marked an exceptional shift, as the Finnish government that had previously supported and implemented measures which strengthened the state operator’s position was now exploring alternative options to the state monopoly. At the time of writing, the latest development in the reform is the second draft of the gambling act (“Draft Act”) published on 1 November 2024 and submitted to the European Commission and other member states for comments. 1 The proposed law aims to establish a licensing system for gambling activities
and their oversight in Finland. The new system allows private gambling companies to apply for a license to operate in the country. While the proposal is still a draft, it is not expected to undergo additional changes unless such are proposed by the Commission or other member states. According to the Draft Act, private operators could enter the Finnish market as early as July 2026 but by January 2027 at the latest. This article explores the recent reforms aimed at liberalising the online gambling market, examining the shift from a defended monopoly to a more regulated and competitive framework. Key developments include the establishment of a new Licensing and Supervisory Authority, proposed licensing structures for both business-to-consumer (B2C) and business-to-business (B2B) operations, and stringent marketing restrictions. As Finland navigates these changes, the focus remains on protecting consumers while fostering a responsible gambling environment in the digital age. Liberalizing online gambling in Finland : f rom defended monopoly to market liberalisation The gambling industry remains unharmonised within the EU, allowing member states to regulate their gambling markets independently — either by liberalising them or restricting access fully or partially, provided they can show sufficient justification with general interest objectives under EU law. 2 Even if the existence of a gambling monopoly is supported by EU law, for example, to prevent the negative effects of gambling, such justification requires the implementation of measures — typically strict and effective supervision of gambling activities — to ensure compliance with the stated objectives. 3
1 Commission, ‘Draft government proposal to Parliament for legislation on a new gambling system’ TRIS/[2024] 2943 <https://technical-regula- tion-information-system.ec.europa.eu/en/notification/26394> accessed 1.11.2024. <https://www.lausuntopalvelu.fi/FI/Proposal/DownloadPro- posalAttachment?proposalId=b91e1f27-d850-416c-b6a6-e47fa5804ea1&attachmentId=22987> accessed 3 July 2024. 2 Article 49 and 56 of the TFEU establish the freedoms of establishment and to offer services. Monopolies are seen as a restrictions of those free- doms; however, Article 52 of the TFEU allows for monopolies to be justified on the grounds of public order, security, and public health. Addition- ally, market restrictions may be justified by overriding reasons of public interest, as recognized by the EU Court of Justice on a case-by-case basis. These reasons include, for instance, the protection of players 3 Stoss and Others (Joined Cases C‑316/07, C‑358/07 to C‑360/07, C‑409/07 and C‑410/07) [2010] < https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62007CA0316>
PAGE 17
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2024
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker