Swedish regulator Spelinspektionen has taken a significant step by appealing the Linköping administrative court’s decision, which annulled an injunction against payment provider Zimpler AB. This move highlights the ongoing tension between regulatory bodies and payment service providers in the context of the online gambling industry.
Spelinspektionen had previously warned Zimpler of a potential fine amounting to SEK25.0 million (approximately £1.9m/€2.2m/$2.4m) if it did not cease providing services that facilitated transactions with offshore gambling sites. This includes the use of the widely utilized e-identification service BankID. The regulator’s order was aimed at curbing illegal gambling activities by restricting the financial transactions that support them.
Zimpler contested this order, leading to the administrative court upholding its appeal last month. The court ruled that Spelinspektionen lacked sufficient grounds for the injunction, resulting in its cancellation. This decision was a notable victory for Zimpler, suggesting that the regulatory authority’s actions were not fully justified under current legal frameworks.
However, Spelinspektionen has now escalated the matter by appealing to a higher court. The regulator contends that the administrative court’s decision warrants further scrutiny, emphasizing the need for judicial clarity due to the absence of precedent in similar cases. According to Spelinspektionen, the provision of payment services by a Swedish company like Zimpler essentially targeted the Swedish market, thereby promoting illegal gambling activities.
In its appeal, Spelinspektionen has called upon a higher court to re-evaluate the situation. The regulator argues that the administrative court may have misinterpreted the legal context, stressing the importance of establishing a clear legal precedent. This is particularly critical for determining when gambling activities are considered targeted at Sweden and understanding the full scope of the promotion ban.
Spelinspektionen has maintained that the illegal gambling sites were not only accessible to Swedish consumers but were also tailored for the Swedish market through the use of Zimpler’s services. The employment of BankID, a service exclusively available in Sweden, was highlighted as a clear indicator of targeting Swedish users, reinforcing the regulator’s position that Zimpler’s actions constituted illegal promotion.
Furthermore, Spelinspektionen argued that Zimpler was knowingly facilitating illegal gambling by working with offshore operators despite being aware of their unlawful status. The regulator insisted that the mere facilitation of payment services, regardless of whether they explicitly targeted gambling companies, amounted to illegal promotion under Swedish law.
The outcome of this appeal is likely to have significant implications for the regulation of online gambling and the responsibilities of payment service providers in Sweden. A higher court’s decision could establish crucial legal benchmarks, affecting how such cases are managed in the future.
