Europe’s Gambling Sphere: Key Regulatory Shifts in 2025 and Outlook for 2026

Throughout 2025, European regulatory authorities concentrated on 2 core priorities: raising gambling taxes and tackling illicit activities. New fiscal measures were implemented to bolster state budgets and tighten oversight, while stricter controls are intended to diminish the presence of shadow operators.

Legal Standards and Public Demands: Striking Equilibrium

In 2025, additional tax burdens emerged as a widespread regulatory trend. Authorities considered them a multi-purpose instrument intended to:

• enhance supervision of the gambling sector;
• lower the risks of financial mechanism abuse;
• ensure stable funding for government programmes;
• exclude unlicensed brands from the entertainment market.

In practice, however, the outcome was the opposite. Rather than stabilisation, Europe encountered greater complexity.

Certified business owners faced:

• shrinking profit margins;
• restricted access to reliable promotion channels;
• accelerated player migration to offshore platforms;
• negligible progress in improving customer protection.

Against this backdrop, industry stakeholders questioned whether regulatory tightening would persist and what adjustments to expect. Specialists suggest the trend is likely to continue in 2026, though without radical, business-impacting measures such as sweeping tax hikes.

The subsequent phase entails a gradual shift towards accessibility controls, stricter technological requirements, and the de facto alignment of oversight practices across different regions. However, the adoption of a unified pan-European law seems unlikely. Instead, a quieter mechanism is emerging — one that could reshape operational principles and reduce fragmentation.

The reasons for implementing new standards remain the same:

• ethical considerations;
• public health concerns;
• national fiscal interests.

Coordinating regulations across Europe remains challenging because of significant differences in technological and legal requirements among member states. These discrepancies are evident in measures such as blocking specific payment applications or limiting access to portals, caused by inconsistencies in unique data processing and protection protocols.

Irrespective of their state of registration, European companies are already obliged to comply with:

• consumer safety standards;
• the Digital Services Act (DSA);
• Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules;
• the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

A supplementary oversight mechanism will be established with the enactment of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, adopted in 2024. It addresses concerns related to risk assessment, the personalisation of offers, and the application of algorithms based on audience behaviour.

Although none of these documents were developed specifically for the gambling industry, collectively, they standardise a substantial share of compliance mechanisms throughout Europe. This model streamlines technological convergence across different jurisdictions, whereas political harmonisation is expected to appear more complex and time-consuming.

Market Leaders Share Their Perspectives

Prominent industry figures continue to debate the current state of the sector. Björn Fuchs, the Chairman of the Dutch trade organisation VNLOK, highlighted signs of rapprochement within the regional sphere. While progress has been achieved through research initiatives and strategic agreements, he stressed that considerable effort is still required to secure lasting results.

Dr Wulf Hambach, the Managing Partner of the German law firm Hambach & Hambach, underscored the cautious stance of national regulators towards adopting foreign standards. The rationale is evident: attempts at legal harmonisation have frequently fallen short because of local peculiarities and public opinion.

Additional insights from the specialist highlight several critical points:

1. The need for constructive dialogue. European practice demonstrates that relationships cannot be built solely through political decrees. Sustainable progress requires open and equal communication between regulators and industry participants.
2. Fintech operations. Early EU legal frameworks relied on minimal harmonisation and mutual recognition. Common regulations were intended to provide consistency but ultimately proved flawed, leading to severe consequences, including a financial crisis.
3. Data protection and iPayments. Even if regimes are almost identical, outcomes can differ notably when enforcement cultures vary. True convergence happens only when oversight expectations, operational interpretations, and implementation approaches coincide. If not, standardised protocols risk widening the gaps between national regulatory strategies.

In conclusion, experts agree that a single EU gambling law is unnecessary. What matters more is establishing shared technological definitions for harm indicators, risk markers, accounting models, etc.

Practical Application of Innovations: Outcomes and Consequences

As for direct compliance monitoring, standardisation agencies that offer industry-wide initiatives are increasingly intervening. For example, Europe’s CEN has ratified EN 17531, which delineates reporting standards to facilitate iGaming supervision. Additionally, the EGBA has formulated a comprehensive list of harm indicators designed to identify problematic behaviour across gambling jurisdictions.

Although such initiatives are ostensibly voluntary, in practice, they are rapidly becoming obligatory, as all fundamental procedures of local regulators are structured around them. Germany provides a clear illustration: its authorities have adopted ISO/IEC 27001, an internationally recognised benchmark for data security management. Originally promoted as a best practice, it has now emerged as a compulsory licensing requirement.

Experts anticipate that the same logic will soon apply to artificial intelligence algorithms as well. Pekka Ilmivalta, the Head of Nordic Legal’s quarters in Finland, noted that standards in the AI-driven harm detection segment would likely evolve from an innovation into a mandatory demand.

The key uncertainty lies in whether regulators will limit themselves to setting expectations for operators or actively participate in establishing and integrating a centralised oversight framework. When coupled with shared national and global standards, artificial intelligence algorithms could form a robust basis for future enforcement and licensing.

Impact of the Dutch Model on European Gambling Regulation

Morten Ronde, the CEO of the Danish iGaming association Spillebranchen, doubts that Europe is heading towards standardised industry requirements. He believes that current trends are more influenced by public opinion than by solid scientific proof. As a result, strict top-down controls are often inefficient.

Experience from the financial and data protection fields demonstrates that principled, technology-neutral regulations are more effective than static thresholds, even when accompanied by heavy fines. When authorities rely on common indicators and formal reports, legal inconsistencies tend to vanish, thereby eradicating discrepancies.

Certain markets could take advantage of a pan-European regulatory framework. This is particularly relevant given the gradual deterioration in political sentiment towards gambling in states such as the Netherlands. Although the Dutch iGaming vertical was legalised in 2021, the local government is now preparing to introduce stricter oversight.

At the centre of current debates are new fiscal constraints, potentially linked to customer funds. Research projects are being commissioned, and their findings may serve as the foundation for forthcoming legislation.

Specialists’ perspectives on the current situation:

1. Björn Fuchs. The Chairman stressed that protecting client rights requires the most efficient tools. He pointed to the accessibility-based strategy as a proven success, noting that its components are already integrated into several European systems. However, he cautioned that excessive requirements on customers inevitably drive them towards the grey market.
2. Morten Ronde. According to the executive, Dutch channelisation currently stands at roughly 50% — a figure he considers highly alarming. He attributed this to advertising constraints, heavy taxation, and other regulatory measures. Mr Ronde urged other countries to treat the Netherlands case as a warning and to proceed with caution.
3. Pekka Ilmivalta. The representative expressed concern that the Dutch model might spread across Europe. He noted that many laws lack sufficient data to justify the measures implemented. In his view, strict financial thresholds should be replaced with less burdensome solutions, such as AI-driven algorithms for individual assessments and enhanced accountability.

The Dutch precedent highlights a critical issue — the disconnect between fixed limits and flexible, context-based assessment continues to be a major barrier to effective oversight.

Future of Gambling Under Regulatory Pressure and Grey Competition

Industry analysts project that Europe’s supervisory strategy will remain largely unchanged in 2026, with national authorities continuing to prioritise taxation, customer security, and tackling the shadow segment.

Mr Fuchs cautioned that if governments persist with their current approach, they risk undermining the viability and profitability of certified gambling brands. In turn, the overall quality of consumer protection may deteriorate, as players tend to migrate to alternative platforms once authorised offerings become inconvenient or unattractive.

This trend is already evident in jurisdictions where rules have tightened most rapidly. Should major EU markets, such as Denmark and the UK, adopt similar measures, legal operators would face a considerable disadvantage compared with offshore competitors. Even under the existing regulatory burden, authorities are struggling to curb the increasing appeal of grey products across television, social media, and mobile channels.

Without effective enforcement mechanisms, further tightening of requirements will only accelerate user outflow to unlicensed alternatives. The problem is visible not only in the Netherlands but also in Germany, where, despite extensive restrictions, iGaming oversight remains insufficient. The local shadow market’s share surpasses 50%. In the digital realm, it accounts for 70–80%.

Dr Hambach warned that any additional regulatory measures, particularly punitive taxation, could backfire. Such steps would severely affect the economy and erode gamblers' confidence in the lawful market.

Identifying Legal Entertainment Portals: Key Obstacles

Most European punters continue to encounter difficulties in distinguishing between licensed and illegal gaming platforms. The problem is compounded by the ambiguous definition of gambling, which further blurs the boundaries of the market.

A remarkable example is the AGCO 2023 study. Ontario’s regulatory body reached record-breaking rates of awareness and traffic on authorised websites, with around 86% of online gaming enthusiasts recognising and actively using certified digital portals.

Importantly, local authorities did not attempt to limit access to amusement products. Instead, they curtailed the visibility of offshore brands and strengthened support for official operators through a transparent certification model. This approach greatly increased user awareness of authorised iGaming resources.

Dr Hambach emphasised that labels issued by regional government agencies and industry commissions cannot substitute for comprehensive legal supervision. However, they do provide valuable leverage. In his view, this is the most adequate alternative to blanket prohibitions, which have consistently demonstrated ineffectiveness.

The Main Things About the European Gaming Market in 2026

Most experts agree that the year’s defining trend is gradual, balanced convergence. Shared rules, together with established regulatory frameworks, are steadily shaping a stable yet adaptable sphere that can react swiftly to both internal and external shifts.

Industry specialists recommend that platform owners prioritise 3 key areas:

• Adherence to pan-European requirements set out in the Digital Services Act, AML norms, and other strategic documents.
• Deployment of licensed AI-based solutions to process massive data volumes efficiently and enhance risk forecasting.
• Building strong ties with regulators to maintain alignment between legal compliance and supervisory procedures.

When entrepreneurs and authorities cooperate effectively, the industry becomes more resilient, strengthening consumer protection and tightening control over the grey market.

At Gaminator, we provide end-to-end support for the development and launch of online gambling projects in regulated regions. Our experts will gladly assist you with licensing, software integration, and the creation of a robust business plan that complies with legal standards.