Official magazine of the International Masters of Gaming Law
®
MALTA MARKET FOCUS
INTERNATIONAL MASTERS of GAMING LAW MAGAZINE
VOLUME 5 | NO. 4 | DECEMBER 2025
SKILL VERSUS CHANCE IN ONTARIO SLOTS REGULATION PLUS: ALL CHANGE IN INDIAN REAL MONEY GAMING 1-ON-1 WITH CHAIR OF NETHERLANDS’ KSA REGULATING INFLUENCER MARKETING PREDICTION MARKETS: THE TRIBAL IMPACT ROMANIAN REGULATORY CHANGES ...AND MUCH MORE!
PAGE 1
IMGL MAGAZINE | JANUARY 2023
MALTA’S FATF GREY-LISTING IMGL OFFICERS 2025
Officers of IMGL for 2025
PHIL SICUSO Assistant Treasurer BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP INDIANAPOLIS +1 317 684 5265 PSICUSO@BOSELAW.COM
PETER KULICK 1 st Vice President DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC LANSING, MICHIGAN +1 517 487 4729 PKULICK@DICKINSONWRIGHT.COM MARC DUNBAR President JONES WALKER TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA +1 850 214 5080 MDUNBAR@JONESWALKER.COM COSMINA SIMION Executive Vice President WHSIMION & PARTNERS BUCHAREST, ROMANIA +40 31 420 6225 COSMINA.SIMION@ WHSIMIONPARTNERS.RO
RON SEGEV Secretary SEGEV LLP TORONTO / VANCOUVER +1 604 629 5402 RON@SEGEVLLP.COM
DR. SIMON PLANZER Assistant Secretary PLANZER LAW AG ZUG, SWITZERLAND +41 41 512 42 82 PLANZER@PLANZER-LAW.COM
ERNEST C. MATTHEWS IV Vice President, Affiliate Members INTERNET SPORTS INTERNATIONAL LAS VEGAS, NEVADA +1 954 478 8758 ERNEST@ISISPORTS.COM BIRGITTE SAND Vice President, Affiliate-Regulator Members BIRGITTE SAND AND ASSOCIATES COPENHAGEN, DENMARK +45 24 44 05 03 BS@BIRGITTESAND.COM BECKY HARRIS Vice President, Educator Members WILLIAM S. BOYD SCHOOL OF LAW AT UNLV LAS VEGAS, NEVADA +1 702-324-0404 BECKY@BECKYHARRISNV.COM
MATTHIAS SPITZ 2 nd Vice President MELCHERS LAW HEIDELBERG +49 62 2118 50141 M.SPITZ@MELCHERS-LAW.COM
KATE LOWENHAR-FISHER Treasurer EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, EVERI HOLDINGS INC +1 800 566-2087 KATE.LOWENHARFISHER@EVERI.COM
PAGE 2
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
PRESIDENT’S WELCOME
••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••
Another year of memories and milestones
MARC DUNBAR President INTERNATIONAL MASTERS OF GAMING LAW
W
elcome to the twentieth edition of the new-look IMGL Magazine. It is hard to believe that five years have
the bodies that enable me as president and our executive committee to achieve all that we do and we are all grateful to them. As far as our industry is concerned, 2025 – like every year that I can remember – has been one of mixed fortunes. What has struck me, however, is the relentless energy and optimism that endures. Yes, some markets are perhaps less promising than they once were, but many others are far from maturity and still offer great potential. That is one reason why I am so focused on extending the reach and geographical spread of our membership, and you can expect to hear much more about that in the next year. All of which leads me on to remind you to review the program of conferences we have planned for next year. Washington, D.C., is a beautiful city in the spring, and with politics an ever-present force in gaming it feels like April will be an opportune time and place to get together. The agenda is well advanced, and our moderators are currently approaching panellists for what promises to be another super event. One of the areas we have worked hard on recently is the value proposition for sponsors of our events. I would encourage you to consider the opportunity to get involved in D.C. or in Paris later in the year. These are both powerful platforms and we would be happy to send you the revised sponsorship prospectus. That just leaves me to wish you season’s greetings, and I hope to meet you in person at an IMGL event next year. Marc Dunbar
passed since its re-launch, but it continues to go from strength to strength under the guiding hand of Simon Planzer. Our intention with the relaunch was to deliver something of consistently high quality and to offer a platform that members and others would be excited to build on. The regular and overwhelmingly positive feedback that I receive and the willingness of some of the world’s leading gaming lawyers to contribute articles suggest that we have hit our marks on both counts. The turn of the year is an opportunity to look back at what the last 12 months have brought for our organization and our industry. Our two conferences hit the heights both in terms of educational content, the quality and quantity of attendees and the fabulous hospitality we enjoyed. Vancouver and Lisbon are two very different cities but, thanks to our organizing committees, we were able to see the best of them both. If you’re reading the digital version of the magazine, you can watch our superb post-Lisbon video in these pages and see what an IMGL conference is all about. Talking of committees, I am delighted to report that all these vital groups have made substantial progress this year. Whether they are looking at ways to better serve our members, reviewing our marketing, spearheading our program of Masterclasses or gazing into the future of the IMGL, our committees are great servants and advocates of the organization. They are also
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
PAGE 3
EDITORIAL
Serving IMGL members and our readers
A s indicated in his presidential welcome, it has been Marc Dunbar’s mission to find additional and better ways of serving IMGL members, to expand the reach of the organization and to anticipate the future of IMGL and gaming law practice. As Editor-in-Chief of the IMGL Magazine, I wholeheartedly support this mission and continue to look at additional ways the publication can provide value to IMGL members and to our readership at large. Top of the agenda for me is to keep the quality standards of published articles high with no apology that this places high expectations on the manuscripts submitted by authors. With this objective in mind, we have amended our author guidelines to reflect lessons learned, further improve the review process and foster the high bar for approving submissions. This will mean, among other things, longer lead- times to allow more time for a thorough review process which, I am sure, will bring even more value to readers and a further elevated and prestigious platform for authors. The objective is an IMGL Magazine that features ever more robust articles based on strong editorial principles.
This process of continuously finding better ways to add value to readers and authors has been an opportunity to review article formats. Since the April 2024 issue we have added 1-on-1 interviews, first-hand conversations where senior figures from the gaming industry share their insights with our readers. To date, I have had the pleasure of sitting down and discussing topical matters with general counsels from major international operators like MGM’s John McManus and senior regulators like IAGR President Ben Haden. As a contrast with the more formal style of our authored articles, the interviews provide for a more personal approach that gives readers access to the highly relevant observations of senior figures. They share their insights from a wealth of experience and reflect on future challenges and opportunities in a format that is easy to digest for overly busy gaming lawyers. In this edition we invite you to take a deep dive into the Dutch market with our latest 1-on-1 interview with KSA Chairman Michel Gruithuizen. Among other topics, I invited him to comment on what I would call the two dimensions of creating and
SIMON PLANZER PHD Editor in Chief IMGL MAGAZINE
Contents 6
License to skill: regulatory approaches to skill-gaming machines in Ontario
12 16 26 30
Regulation and reality in Netherlands
Regulating influencer marketing in gaming and gambling Caught in the middle: tribal tensions between federal and state law India hits the reset button on online gaming governance
38 Upping the ante: Ireland’s new advertising restrictions will have a significant impact on operators 42 Tightening in all directions: market reform in Romania 46 Spring 2026 Conference: level up your legal game in the nation’s capital
PAGE 4
IMGL MAGAZINE | JUNE 2025 IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
EDITORIAL
sustaining a well-managed regulated gambling market: creating a licensed market that is attractive to operators and players and tackling the black market, in this order, I should add. Without an attractive market for operators and players, tackling the black market becomes a Sisyphean task. Mr Gruithuizen was refreshingly frank about both aspects as well as sharing his view of the initial hopes for regulated gaming in the Netherlands and how that compares to the current reality. Alongside these insights, this issue brings highly topical articles from three continents. From the blurring of the lines between skill and chance in Canada, to the impact of prediction markets on tribal gaming in the U.S., and the regulatory earthquake that hit the real-money gaming industry in India, as well as several highly relevant contributions from Europe, including a piece on why regulating influencer marketing is more difficult than it first appears. I hope you enjoy this issue of the IMGL Magazine. As a reminder, you are very welcome to contribute to the President’s mission by submitting your high-quality manuscripts to the IMGL Magazine. Simon planzer@planzer-law.com
To access our extensive archive of expert gaming law articles visit www.IMGL.org/publications
IMGL Magazine is owned, published and distributed by: The International Masters of Gaming Law PO Box 27106, Las Vegas, NV 89126 USA The IMGL is a domestic non-profit corporation registered in Nevada, U.S. with registration number NV20121147120 Editor in Chief: Simon Planzer PhD, planzer@planzer-law.com Publication & Marketing Committee: Co-chairs , Simon Planzer (Publications), Ali Bartlett (Social Networks & Digital) Members : Luiz Felipe Maia, Daniel McGinn, Luis Carvalho Staff : Phil Savage, Brien Van Dyke Head of Publications: Phil Savage phil@IMGL.org Design and production: SportBusiness Communications. Copyright: All rights reserved to IMGL. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission from the publisher. The articles expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of IMGL but those of the authors. The publisher and editor do not accept any liability for the contents of the authors’ contributions.
PAGE 5 PAGE 5
IMGL MAGAZINE | JUNE 2025 IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
CANADIAN REGULATION
License to skill: regulatory approaches to skill-gaming machines in Ontario JACK TADMAN UNPICKS TWO PROMINENT CASES TO ARGUE FOR A COLLABORATIVE AND DETERRENCE-FOCUSED APPROACH TO REGULATING SKILL GAMING
Based on the above, it’s easy to understand why companies would prefer to provide products that resemble gambling (but are missing one of the legal elements of gambling) over actual gambling products, especially if the companies don’t enjoy “showing feet” to the regulator. However, what makes these “not-gambling” products engaging is often the gambling mechanics. As a result, “not-gambling” products have the look and feel of gambling products and attempt to come as close to the line between gambling and not-gambling as possible without crossing that line. How do we ensure that the products are “not-gambling”? In Canada, like many other jurisdictions, gambling has three elements: consideration, chance, and prize. 1 Remove one of those elements, and you’re not providing a gambling product.
Introduction: Gambling and “not-gambling” Readers of the IMGL Magazine are familiar with the heavy regulation in the gambling industry. Applying for a local licence or registration? Be prepared to answer questions about relevant topics like the car you bought in university (even though you didn’t have a job – how did you afford it?), how your family really made their money (even though they own a double-digit number of Arby’s franchises in the Midwest), and whether that payment for bunion ointment was actually part of a nefarious scheme to funnel revenue to unsavoury characters secretly involved in your business (“Send feet pics.” “Ok.” “There are no bunions on your feet.” “That’s because I used the ointment.” “You’re going to have to come in for another in person interview. Don’t wear socks”.)
1 See for example R. v. Robinson (1917), 29 C.C.C. 153 (Sask. C.A.).
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
PAGE 7
CANADIAN REGULATION
Or, to continue with the verbiage in this article, you are providing a “not-gambling” product.
Gotskill?: Celebrating 10 years and counting The first skill-gaming operator to make headlines was Pong Marketing and Promotions Inc. (“Pong”, and later “Play for Fun” or “SBG”) with its game “GotSkill?”. 3 Here is how the game worked at the time Pong and the AGCO began their dispute. 4 Like a slot machine, GotSkill? has reels that spin to reveal prizes. However, unlike a slot machine, a player is given information about the amount of the potential next win of the machine. Using information about the potential next win of the machine, the player chooses whether to play or not. If the player chooses to play, the game proceeds through two stages. The first stage is known as the “amusement phase” during which reels are presented to a player. If the potential win is not zero, the animation reveals a winning line combination or scatter pay. The second stage is known as the “skill task” which consists of a cursor moving back and forth at a constant speed across an area with 21 bars. Each bar is assigned a percentage value of between 55 percent and 110 percent. Once the player presses the “stop” button, the cursor stops moving. The challenge is to stop the cursor as close to the middle of the area as possible. The closer the cursor is to the middle when it stops, the greater the percentage. If the player stops the cursor in the middle of the area, the player receives 110 percent of the player’s win during the amusement phase. The outcome of the skill task depends entirely on the player’s hand-eye coordination. Once the game is complete, the player’s “actual win” is the amount won during the amusement phase multiplied by the percentage value obtained on the skill task. It was not disputed by the parties that the “skill task” component of GotSkill? is dependent solely on skill and not chance. 5
Skill-game cabinets in Ontario One “not-gambling” product (or maybe it is a gambling product) that has made headlines in Ontario lately is skill-gaming machines. These machines have the look and feel of slot machines, but the gameplay mechanics are designed such that the games are considered games of skill. Skill-gaming machines are physical cabinets that are placed in locations like bars, restaurants, and convenience stores. Ontario is the largest province in Canada, hosting nearly 40 percent of Canada’s population. It is also one of two provinces (along with British Columbia) that do not have video lottery terminals in licensed establishments. Therefore, placing a “not- gambling” machine that looks like a slot machine in a licensed establishment is a high-value proposition, due to the lack of competition with slot machines and video lottery terminals. Ontario is not the only jurisdiction dealing with skill-gaming machines. The U.S. state of Pennsylvania, for example, has been a key battleground state for skill games. Courts in Pennsylvania have determined that skill-gaming machines fall outside of Pennsylvania’s Gaming Act. Therefore, the machines are not subject to the same regulations as slot machines. As with Ontario, these machines are typically found in restaurants, bars, and gas stations. In response to the lack of regulation, a bipartisan bill was introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate in November 2025 that would regulate and tax these machines. 2 Back to Ontario, there have been two notable skill-gaming products available in bars and restaurants over the last few years. The Ontario regulator, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”), has taken markedly different approaches to those skill-gaming products.
2 Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1079, An Act providing for skill video gaming; imposing duties on the Department of Revenue; providing for issuance of licenses for skill video gaming; imposing a fee and criminal and civil penalties; and providing for zoning, retrieved from https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/text/PDF/2025/0/SB1079/PN1301, November 14, 2025. 3 The AGCO Information Bulletin describes the game as being provided by Pong. See here: https://www.agco.ca/en/news/info-bulletin-no46-le- gality-got-skill-game-licensed-establishments The applicant in the court case was Play for Fun Studios Inc. (“Play for Fun”), and later became Skill Based Games Inc. (“SBG”). 4 Play For Fun Studios Inc. v. Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing, 2018 ONSC 5190. 5 Ibid.
PAGE 8
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
CANADIAN REGULATION
On October 20, 2017, the AGCO released Information Bulletin No. 46, which stated that (i) the parties have resolved to ask the Superior Court of Ontario to hear the application as to whether GotSkill? is legal; and (ii) the AGCO will not take regulatory action against a licensee who hosts such a game in their licensed establishment until a decision has been given by the court. If the final decision of the court is that the games cannot be legally hosted and played in a licensed establishment, the AGCO will direct licence holders to remove the machines from their premises and will allow a reasonable period for licence holders to comply. If the final decision is that the hosting and playing of the game is not contrary to the Criminal Code and/or Liquor Licence Act requirements, the AGCO will allow licence holders to host the game, if there are no other unrelated regulatory issues. 6 GotSkill? machines continued to be available in licensed establishments. On September 4, 2018, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined that GotSkill? was a game of skill, because a player who continuously obtained 110 percent on the skill task, and played through an entire run of tickets (1000 plays), would win more than they lost. T herefore, the GotSkill? machine cannot defeat the ability of a player to obtain favourable results. 7 On October 10, 2018, the AGCO released Information Bulletin No. 87, informing licensees that the AGCO filed a notice of appeal with the Ontario Court of Appeal. 8 GotSkill? machines continued to be available in licensed establishments.
Bulletin No. 92, informing licensees that the appeal date was June 18, 2019. 9 GotSkill? machines continued to be available in licensed establishments. On August 8, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the Superior Court of Justice Decision and determined that GotSkill? was a game of mixed chance and skill (and thus not allowed to be provided in licensed establishments without AGCO approval). The Court acknowledged the finding of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that it was technically possible for a player to consistently win more than they lost, but factors such as (i) a player not knowing when the run of 1000 tickets starts; (ii) a player not knowing that if the player changed game themes a new run of tickets would start, and (iii) the player would also not know that a run of 1000 tickets was necessary. 10 Instead of the unlikely hypothetical accepted by the lower court, the Court of Appeal focused on the normal course of play of an “ordinary player” of the game. The chance present in GotSkill? was that players chose to spend their money for the opportunity of being able to obtain something of greater value the next time. Whether or not players have that opportunity is based on chance. 11 On August 9, 2019, the AGCO released Information Bulletin No. 94, notifying licensees of the decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal finding that GotSkill? was gambling, and letting licensees know they would be contacted about removal of the machines. 12 GotSkill? machines continued to be available in licensed establishments.
On February 25, 2019, the AGCO released Information
On August 20, 2019, the AGCO released Information Bulletin
6 AGCO , Info Bulletin No.46 - Legality of “Got Skill” Game in Licensed Establishments , https://www.agco.ca/en/news/info-bulletin-no46-legality-got-skill-game-licensed-establishments, retrieved November 17, 2025. 7 Supra note 4 8 AGCO , Info Bulletin No. 87 - Got Skill Game in Licensed Establishments: AGCO appeals Superior Court decision , https://www.agco.ca/en/news/info-bulletin-no-87-got-skill-game-licensed-establishments-agco-appeals-superior-court, retrieved November 17, 2025. 9 AGCO , Info Bulletin No. 92: Got Skill Game in Licensed Establishments: UPDATE - AGCO to Ontario Court of Appeal - June 18, 2019 , https://www.agco.ca/en/news/info-bulletin-no-92-got-skill-game-licensed-establishments-update-agco-ontario-court-appeal, retrieved November 17, 2025. 10 Play for Fun Studios Inc. v. Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario) , 2019 ONCA 648 (CanLII) , at para 31. 11 Ibid . at para 26. 12 AGCO , Information Bulletin 94 : Got Skill Game in Licensed Establishments: UPDATE, https://www.agco.ca/en/news/information-bulle- tin-94-got-skill-game-licensed-establishments-update, retrieved November 17, 2025.
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
PAGE 9
CANADIAN REGULATION
No. 95, notifying licensees that they had until September 3, 2019, to remove GotSkill? from their establishments. 13 After two years, GotSkill? machines would finally be removed from licensed establishments. Except they weren’t! Information Bulletin No. 95 also informed licensees that “the developer of the GotSkill? game has made certain modifications to the game following the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Registrar has not yet come to a conclusion about the legality of the modified game. Liquor licence holders who choose to permit the operation of the modified game on their premises do so at the risk that the Registrar may determine that the modified game is unlawful gambling.” 14 GotSkill? machines continued to be available in licensed establishments. 15 Play for Fun, now known as Skill Based Games Inc. (or “SBG”), modified the game to address the concerns raised by the Court of Appeal. The game was changed in the following ways: (i) instead of only the next possible win being viewable, the next five potential wins were now viewable; (ii) the terms and conditions were updated to reference the ability of players to see the next five potential wins; and (iii) players could play the skill-bar task on zero-value tickets (this was done to allow the players to practice the skill task. No tangible value was returned to the player for successfully completing the skill task). 16 On April 19, 2023, the AGCO released an information bulletin (by this point the AGCO had stopped numbering its information bulletins) notifying licensees that, following the unanimous decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal and a recent assessment of GotSkill? by an independent testing laboratory, the AGCO is requiring licensees to ensure GotSkill? is not played at a licensee’s establishment. Licensees had until
May 15, 2023, to remove GotSkill? from their establishments. 17 After nearly six years, GotSkill? machines would finally be removed from licensed establishments. Except (once again) they weren’t! In an unnumbered information bulletin dated May 8, 2023, the AGCO informed licensees that SBG had filed an Application for Judicial Review with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and that the AGCO’s requirement that licensed establishments stop offering GotSkill? would be put on hold. 18 GotSkill? machines continued to be available in licensed establishments. On August 28, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that GotSkill? is a game of mixed chance and skill. The court was not moved by the three changes made to GotSkill? described above. Of the three changes, the only change with substance, according to the court, was increasing the number of potential next wins from one to five. The court observed that “a systematic resort to chance can exist if a player must play a round, regardless of the prize, to discover the prize in a future round. 19 The AGCO has not released any information bulletins related to the decision. SBG applied to the Ontario Court of Appeal for a stay of the declaratory judgment by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that GotSkill? is a game of mixed chance and skill, including with respect to the April 23, 2023, information bulletin requiring liquor licenses in Ontario to ensure that GotSkill? is not operated in commercial establishments. On October 8, 2025, the court dismissed the appeal but ordered an expedited hearing of the appeal from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The current date set for the appeal is January 9, 2026. 20
13 AGCO , Information Bulletin 95: Removal of Got Skill Game in Licensed Establishments required by September 3, 2019 , https://www.agco.ca/en/news/information-bulletin-95-removal-got-skill-game-licensed-establishments-required-september-3, retrieved Novem- ber 17, 2025. 14 Ibid 15 Play for Fun appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. On March 5, 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal. 16 SBG-Skill v. Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming, 2025 ONSC 4938, at para 11. 17 AGCO, AGCO requires liquor licensed establishments in Ontario to stop offering GotSkill gambling machines on their premises , https://www.agco.ca/en/news/agco-requires-liquor-licensed-establishments-ontario-stop-offering-gotskill-gambling-machines, retrieved Novem- ber 17, 2025. 18 AGCO, Update on GotSkill Machines in Liquor Licensed Establishments, https://www.agco.ca/en/news/update-gotskill-machines-liquor-licensed-establishments, retrieved November 17, 2025. 19 Supra note 15 at para 21. 20 SBG-Skill Based Games Inc. v. Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission), 2025 ONCA 692.
PAGE 10
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
CANADIAN REGULATION
On July 17, 2025, the AGCO put out an unnumbered news release (“news release” is the new name for the information bulletin) announcing that it took steps to revoke the lottery seller registrations of retailers in the Greater Toronto Area that were “found to be offering unapproved electronic gaming machines under the Prime Skill brand”. 21 The AGCO conducted enforcement actions on locations with Prime Skill’s games, issuing 42 Notices of Non-Compliance and 11 Notices of Proposal to Revoke. A Proposal to Revoke means that the AGCO will no longer allow an establishment to serve alcohol, or, in the case of convenience stores, to sell lottery products and alcohol. On September 26, 2025, the AGCO put out an unnumbered news release announcing that more than 50 “Prime Slots” machines had been removed from liquor-licensed and lottery retail establishments. 22 GotSkill? machines were not mentioned in the news release. Where are they now? Prime Skill has stated that it intends to provide the legality of its machines and the integrity of its operations “through every available means, whether through legal documentation, expert analysis or, if necessary, before the courts.” 23 It has filed a Notice of Application with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and a case conference is scheduled for May 29, 2026. 24 Meanwhile, on GotSkill?’s website, there is a post from April 2025 celebrating 10 years of GotSkill? 25 We are not aware of any licensees facing consequences due to hosting GotSkill? Games.
Prime Skill: Not given the same (mixed) chance (and skill) Compare the GotSkill? saga to a more recent approach taken by the AGCO against a different skill-game provider, Prime Skill Games (“Prime Skill”). Prime Skill’s skill-gaming machines look like slot machines, except that the result of each game can be known to a player by successfully solving a mathematical equation. A player can see up to 1000 results in advance by solving equations. Further, there is always a winning play available to players, which is discoverable by solving equations for each game and game play amount. Prime Skill Games were available in bars, restaurants, and convenience stores. Unlike with GotSkill?, where the AGCO agreed with Pong/ Play for Fun/SBG to let the courts decide the legal status of the games (and allow the games to be played in licensed establishments until a decision was reached), the AGCO’s in house testing lab assessed Prime Skill’s games by playing the games, reviewing the gaming system architecture and source code, and examining the game play, flow, logic, and player options. The testing lab, likely in conjunction with the AGCO’s legal team, determined that the game provided by Prime Skill was a game of mixed chance and skill. The AGCO only has authority over regulated entities and, therefore, does not have authority over Prime Skill, because Prime Skill is not registered with the AGCO. Therefore, the AGCO focused on its licensees (bars and restaurants are liquor licensees, convenience stores may be lottery and potentially liquor licensees) that placed Prime Skill games in their locations. AGCO inspectors were sent to various locations with Prime Skill machines and performed inspections.
21 AGCO, AGCO takes action to remove unapproved gambling machines from Ontario convenience stores , https://www.agco.ca/en/news/agco-takes-action-remove-unapproved-gambling-mach,,ines-ontario-convenience-stores, retrieved November 17, 2025. 22 AGCO, AGCO continues crackdown on illegal gaming machines: over 50 devices removed after province-wide sweep , https://www.agco.ca/en/news/agco-continues-crackdown-illegal-gaming-machines-over-50-devices-removed-after-province-wide, retrieved November 17, 2025. 23 Canadian Gaming Business, Prime Skill Games challenges AGCO after Toronto-area machines removed , https://www.canadiangamingbusiness.com/2025/07/21/agco-removes-unapproved-gambling-machines/, retrieved November 17, 2025. 24 Prime Skill Games Inc. V. Alcohol and Gaming Commission Of Ontario, Case Number Cv-25-00750354-0000 25 SBG, Canadian skill-based games company celebrating 10 years of business and service within Ontario’s hospitality sector , https://www. gotskill.ca/post/canadian-skill-based-games-company-celebrating-10-years-of-business-and-service-within-ontario-s-hos, retrieved November 17, 2025.
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
PAGE 11
CANADIAN REGULATION
Eleven businesses are facing the removal of alcohol and lottery services due to having Prime Skill games at their location, which are critical to their survival. The AGCO’s decision to issue Notices to Revoke, instead of, for example, providing licensees with an opportunity to remove machines, prioritized deterrence over the commercial well-being of the restaurants, bars, and lottery retailers, who were likely under the impression that the games in their establishments were games of skill and, therefore, legal. The AGCO’s approach with SBG was collaborative, and it resulted in the availability of GotSkill? Games for approximately eight
years after the initial Information Bulletin. The AGCO’s approach with Prime Skill was to sanction licensees who had Prime Skill games in their locations, including by issuing Notices to Revoke. With no official statement on the subject, we can only speculate as to why the AGCO took such radically different approaches in these two cases. Looking at how the GotSkill? matter played out, it’s reasonable to assume that the regulator wanted to avoid another eight-year bout of tangling with skill-gaming operators in the courts. Regardless, it is in all stakeholders’ interests to carry the lessons from GotSkill? and Prime Skill forward to establish a framework for addressing “not-gambling” machines that is collaborative and deterrence-focused.
JACK TADMAN Principal, GME Law For more information contact jack@gmelawyers.com +1 647 567-1742
Lasting bonds with our customers are built on reliability and the trust it instills. Trust that can only come from years of delivering unmatched value, on time and precisely as needed. From iGaming and sports betting to lotteries, land-based operations and more, we are committed to guiding you through the future of gaming, providing integrated compliance services that support your innovation and growth. Embrace leaving your mark on the industry. It’s your turn to set the pace.
gaminglabs.com
ONE-ON-ONE
Regulation & reality in the Netherlands MICHEL GROOTHUIZEN , CHAIR OF KSA, THE NETHERLANDS REGULATOR, TALKED TO EDITOR-IN CHIEF SIMON PLANZER ABOUT GAME-CHANGING TECHNOLOGIES, ADVERTISING BANS, TAX AND HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE BLACK MARKET. Introduction Having liberalized to great acclaim a few short years ago, Kansspelautoriteit (KSA) recently went public with a statement that channelization rates had fallen below 50 percent. We asked its chair how the country got here and his hopes to turn the tide.
In 2010, our picture of online gambling was of people sitting behind a desk or at their living room table, but always using a computer. What we now know is that the smartphone has become the dominant way to gamble online. That was a real game changer that we did not really foresee and honestly, when you speak with Dutch politicians, even now, they do not always realize that within three clicks on your smartphone, you can play every game you want. For those who do not gamble themselves, they have no idea that that’s the reality. So, that makes framing a law somewhat difficult. SP: Did that mean they were surprised by how the market developed? MG: I think you could say that. After the market opened up it attracted commercial companies to enter the competitive arena, and everyone wanted to win as big a market share as possible. Quite understandable. But the consequence of that struggle was that licensees ran very aggressive and widespread advertising
Simon Planzer: When the Dutch regulated market opened five years ago, there were very high expectations from various stakeholders, including the industry. The Dutch regulation was widely welcomed and applauded for being progressive and introducing a liberal licensing system. You were not in post at that time, but can you describe the expectations of the market and how the KSA saw it back then? Michel Groothuizen: I was not with KSA, but coincidentally, a decade earlier, in around 2010, I was the Policy Director in the Ministry of Justice here in the Netherlands. There I was responsible for the gambling law that was already being written. Even at that time, people had been working on it for five or six years. The process of creating the law was a very long one and that had some specific consequences. At the start of the process, while the internet was more or less fully developed, the smartphone was not and so the impact of the smartphone was not taken into account in the law.
PAGE 14
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
ONE-ON-ONE
1 on 1
SP : You mentioned the game changing role, of the smartphone and mobile devices in general. Are there aspects that are missing in that regard, in the Dutch primary law or secondary law today? MG: I think so, yes. For instance, the law came into force at a point in time when freedom of the internet was considered and appreciated very highly, perhaps naively. Since then, whether as a result of child pornography or the distribution of terrorist materials, our views have changed. This has had one very practical result. If I look at my Danish or French colleagues, they have been able to act quickly to take down hundreds of illegal sites. In Holland, while it’s not impossible, it can take us nearly a year, and as a consequence, it’s completely valueless for us. It has no practical use. SP There are two dimensions to the challenge of creating and sustaining a well-managed regulated gambling market. The first gets the headlines and that is tackling the black market. But the second is all too often forgotten and that is to create a licensed market that is attractive to operators and their customers. Do you agree? And if you do, could you comment on the tax increase that was agreed by Dutch politicians against the express recommendations of the KSA. MG: Yes, this is something that’s really worrying us. The revenue from gambling tax was so tremendous that the civil servants in the Ministry of Finance thought, it’s an easy catch. They assumed, with a sector that was growing so much with massive profits, that it would be easy to get a bit more. That’s the reason that they proposed a tax hike from around 30 percent to almost 38 percent. I’m really afraid that for many operators, especially the land-based sector which was already working at marginal profitability, this will be the final blow for many of them. Already we see that many are just disappearing: around 20 percent of local gambling outlets have closed down. For the online sector, it’s different. Their cost structure is not the same, and they will manage to survive. But, the difference
campaigns. Wherever you were in the Netherlands, whether it was at a bus stop or on television or on social media there was blanket advertising for gambling and gambling companies. That was something new for the Netherlands, something we were not used to. It was probably the biggest explosion of advertising for a single sector that we have seen. Everyone from young children to old people were confronted with it, and that completely changed the perception of what was going on. It created a backlash in the media and in among the public, and especially in the minds of politicians and policy makers. They said, this is out of control, we have to stop it. So, the atmosphere that was initially so positive in the Netherlands towards the regulated market has turned into the situation where Dutch politics is today. SP: Looking back, it’s clear to see that heavy advertising to which the population at large is suddenly exposed would have a negative impact. Do you see other factors that have also affected the atmosphere? MG : Indeed, at the same time there was a very big growth in market. If I can give you some approximate figures, five years ago the total revenue from gambling tax was about €400 million and within five years, that figure reached €1 billion. So it more than doubled in just a few years. And the massive growth of the industry was only in the online sector: land-based casinos are static or in decline in the Netherlands. This is not so surprising. Other industries have been affected by the internet and smartphones: we have fewer sex shops, fewer cinemas. Of course, during Covid all land-based establishments were closed and people had to go online if they wanted to gamble. They also had a lot of time on their hands and this drove the online gambling market. We expected that land-based casinos would bounce back after Covid and up to a certain level that happened, but they never recovered to their former levels. Habits had changed and we have seen this in many areas but the effect was that not only did online gambling grow it also displaced the land-based sector in a kind of cannibalization effect.
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
PAGE 15
ONE-ON-ONE
1 on
1
between a weakened legal sector and the illegal sector operating without these restrictions is becoming bigger and bigger. So that’s one thing that worries us and this is likely to actually reduce the tax take from online gambling overall. SP: Are there other areas where you feel policy makers are working against the common objectives of organizing a successful licensed market? MG: Over the past 2-4 years we have come up with quite a lot of measures which have had a big impact. But at some point this becomes more complex. In the Netherlands, we just passed legislation limiting the maximum stake to €700 per month per operator. As a result, we now see that average losses per person have reduced from more than €160 per month to around €115, so a third less. From a policy view, that’s good news: people are losing less. But the combination of these policy measures, the tax hike and the stake limits have made it difficult for the sector. I must emphasize that over 90 percent of people still gamble exclusively in the licensed market, but what we are seeing this year for the first time is that over half the total money staked went to the illegal sector. This is a big shift to the illegal market. The data is not perfect ,but it seems clear that the bigger gamblers have left the legal market and gone to the black market. SP: So, it seems clear that this combination of legislative measures has harmed the regulated market in the Netherlands. How much responsibility do the licensed operators bare for the situation and what could they do to help bring about a more positive atmosphere towards gambling? MG: We have already talked about the tidal wave of advertising and how that turned people off gambling, but the lessons are still not being learned in, for example, duty of care which is a core objective of Dutch regulation. To give an example, last week, we published a fine of €4 million against a licensee for failures in player protection and duty of care. The party concerned responded publicly by saying we disagree with the KSA, we think everything was really open back then, so we don’t think we broke any rules. Now, that may be an argument to make in court but to say it in public looks like they only care about the money and not the player.
tightened, but to try to explain that to a Dutch audience looks like the operator has missed the point. The original legislation was deliberately open and relied on operators to set standards of behavior. Successive enforcement actions have added layers of interpretation of rules and ultimately rules were tightened at their request to make the situation clear. That doesn’t mean it was a free-for-all up to that point. That was never the intention. I understand, as an individual operator, they have to survive in a competitive market, yes, but as a group, the result has been that tolerance for the gaming industry has diminished a lot and they have to share responsibility for that. SP: Are there positive things that the industry is doing and could do more to help the situation? MG: I think that at a certain level, the industry is helping. For the first time, we have managed to create a kind of alliance, an independent body, with representatives from government, the industry, affiliates, payment service providers and other partners to fight illegal operators. I’m not sure this is the complete answer but the politicians I speak with are enthusiastic about it. The industry certainly has the same objective, but we have a lot of ground to make up. SP: That brings us on to the second dimension, that of the black market. You have made some interesting and quite radical suggestions recently about how the industry as a whole, how regulators internationally can work together, can take various actions, perhaps even an Interpol for gambling, to tackle the black market. Perhaps you could expand on that area for us. MG: Individual regulators have limited capacity and this is completely normal. Indeed, it would be strange if we had unlimited resources. But this doesn’t have to be the end of the story. We know, for instance, that of the 20 biggest illegal operators targeting the UK, six of them are in also in our top 10. That’s the same for many European markets: we are up against common adversaries. So, if our British, Swedish, Danish or Italian colleagues have already investigated a company and collected evidence about how it operates, it could be very helpful if we are also able to use this material in our courts. I am a board member of GREF, the Gambling Regulators European Forum and a member of IAGR the International
It may be true that the fine relates to a period before rules were
PAGE 16
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
ONE-ON-ONE
1 on
1
Association of Gaming Regulator. It is not always made public, but we already share a lot of information, but not information which is so much more sensitive. Of course, we would need assurances that we are allowed to do so and that our politicians and our judges will find it acceptable. I do think it would make us much more effective if we could exchange information in ways that Europol or Interpol do in the world of criminal justice. SP: What barriers do you face in achieving such information sharing? MG: I honestly don’t know yet whether this will be possible or what barriers we might come up against. It could be many years before we get effective Europe-wide agreements, but I would like to try and see if we can be effective, to see if such an approach will be accepted in our courts and that we can go beyond borders. It may not be possible, but I will at least try. And I know that regulators in other countries are willing to do the same and see the need to try. SP: One of the other approaches to tackling the black market is to target the infrastructure around them: the service providers, the payment providers, the big tech platforms, is that something that you’re also considering? MG: Yes, in our organization we have a big program we call Disconnect designed to do exactly that, to disconnect the client from the operator. It is working in all the ways you mentioned and with each part of the economic ecosystem that the black market relies on. We are also looking for collaboration with, for instance, legal affiliates who are taking a responsible approach to promotion of gambling and working only with the licensed sector. We are talking with them about some kind of recognition or stamp that shows they are a trusted partner. We haven’t done that kind of thing so far, but we are at least discussing whether that could be a way. SP: Service providers to the industry are in a competitive market, but they also provide their services, their platforms, their game designs, to both the onshore and offshore markets What’s your view on recruiting the service providers to the battle against the black market? MG: It would be helpful to do this on an international or a European level, but the present situation is not like that. While
we might want to act, we have just one general article in our gambling law forbidding the promotion of illegal gambling. It is quite a stretch and could be seen as disproportionate to use that against payment service providers. So, for that reason, we are encouraging collaboration on a voluntary basis. Does this work? Well, the tech firms and the banks are not exactly looking for ways to support me, but for a Dutch bank, it could be bad for their reputation if they’re not willing to do at least something if illegal operators are seen as a danger to vulnerable groups such as young people, for instance. So while they’re not really eager cooperate, they might fear the risk to their reputation if they are not seen to be helping. Obviously working with a Dutch bank is easier than influencing the big tech companies like Google, Meta, etc., but this is a challenge that everyone in Europe is facing, not only in our field. The power of these big tech companies is something that has to be tackled at a governmental level. SP: We recently researched a piece on influencer marketing in gambling and quoted a report into influencers which found they almost universally believe that crypto casino is the future. With trends like this, do you think it’s better or at least inevitable that crypto transactions are brought into the regulated market? MG: I think we’re getting there as we see that some crypto wallets and coins are now safe, regulated, and controllable. So with my colleagues at the KSA, we do consider regulated crypto is a conceivable model in the long term. However, at this moment there are still an incredible number of complications, and a large part of the crypto market still presents too many challenges, for example regarding the traceability of the origin of the funds. I do think crypto is an interesting feature, and if we look at the attractiveness of the legal offering, we will have to do something about it long term. But legally it is not yet allowed, the political arena may object, and in practice there are still complications. SP: Coming back to where we started, are you optimistic that the tide can be turned and the regulated market rejuvenated? MG: I think if we look at the market, we do see we are at some kind of turning point. But I do believe the market is still viable and the regulated market can be brought back to full health.
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
PAGE 17
India hits the reset button on online gaming governance SURPRISE NEW ACT CAUSES MARKET CHAOS AND CASTS A CHILL OF UNCERTAINTY OVER REAL MONEY GAMES REPORT TANISHA KHANNA AND ATHARVA SHENDE
PAGE 18
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025 IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
REAL-MONEY GAMING IN INDIA
O n August 22, 2025, the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (“Act”) received Presidential assent in India, paving the way for its notification as law. The Act was introduced by the Central Government through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”), the nodal ministry in charge of online gaming in India. 1 Despite its title, the Act prohibits all online real money games, imposing penalties of up to three years imprisonment and INR 1 crore fines 2 (approx. US$113,000) for offering such games. However, it also proposes to legitimize the e-sports and social games industries, by recognizing and regulating them. Given the wide array of monetization models, there remains considerable uncertainty around the classification of games as permissible online social games versus prohibited online money games. There are also significant ambiguities in relation to the registration framework for online social games and e-sports under the Act and accompanying Draft Rules. This Act marks a significant departure from the Central Government’s previous stance which was to regulate, instead of prohibit, the online real money skill gaming industry. It was introduced without any prior public or industry consultation, blindsiding India’s multi-billion dollar real money gaming industry. Within weeks of the Act’s introduction, major real money skill gaming operators ceased real money operations, pivoting to free to play and freemium models instead. The Act therefore hit a sector with 90+ million paying users worth US$3.7 billion in 2024, and which was projected to reach US$9.1 billion by 2029. 3 The Act was immediately challenged before several High Courts 4 primarily on the grounds that it sought to ban real money games
of skill, which are constitutionally protected activities under freedom of trade and business guarantees. 5 These appeals have been consolidated before the Supreme Court. 6 The Supreme Court has not granted any interim (i.e., temporary) reliefs and has indicated that the challenge will now be placed before a three-judge Bench for hearing in January 2026. On October 02, 2025, the Central Government introduced the draft Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2025 (“Draft Rules”), the procedural rules for implementation of the Act, for public consultation. Upon feedback being collected, the final Rules and the Act will be notified as law. At present, it is unclear when that will be, but it is expected to be imminent. 7 In this article, we examine the implications of the Act on operators, players and the overall gaming ecosystem in India. To begin with, we provide a brief overview of the existing regulatory framework for gaming in India and trace the key developments that culminated in the introduction of the Act. Centre / State regulations, and the evolution of India’s gaming laws In India, legislative powers are divided between the Central (federal) Government and the States. The legislative power to enact laws on betting and gambling, 8 including on games of skill, 9 vests with the State Governments. Pursuant to this power, State Governments have introduced State-specific laws, most of which prohibit gambling, i.e., betting or wagering on games of chance, while exempting games of skill from these prohibitions. Games of skill have been recognized as constitutionally protected activities by the Supreme Court of
1 MeitY is the Central Ministry in charge of ‘matters relating to online gaming’ under the Government of India (Allocation of Business Rules), 1961 2 Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, s. 9 3 https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/research/indias-online-gaming-sector-may-cross-usd-9-bn-by-2029-re- port/119250363; last visited 22 November 2025 4 Head Digital Works Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India , W.P. (Civil) No. 26233/2025, Karnataka High Court; Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India , W.P. (Civil) No. 13449/2025, Delhi High Court; Clubboom 11 Sports & Entertainment Private Limited v. Union of India , W.P. (Civil) No. 34900/2025, Madhya Pradesh High Court. 5 State Of Bombay vs R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala And Ors . AIR1956BOM1 6 T.C.(C) No. 000133/2025 Head Digital Works v Union of India 7 https://www.thehindu.com/business/real-money-gaming-ban-to-be-formally-notified-on-oct-1-vaishnaw/article70067293.ece; last visited 22 November 2025 8 Entry 34, List II, Constitution of India 9 All India Gaming Federation vs The State of Karnataka & Or s, WP 18703/2021, Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors , WP Nos.18022, 18029, 18044, 19374, 19380 of 2020, 7354, 7356 and 13870 of 2021
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
PAGE 19
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker