Finland’s gaming reform is split: the plan to open the market is being replaced by strict regulation

According to foreign media reports, the gaming reform planned for Finland in 2027 was intended to open up the market, eliminate legal grey areas, attract players back and stay away from offshore websites. But as the bill moves towards its finalization, political pressure gathers in the opposite direction – – The vision of open competition is gradually giving way to stricter advertising and regulatory restrictions.

After several months of review, the Administrative Committee of the Finnish Parliament submitted to the Government amendments to the Lottery Act. On the face of it, the task was to amend some vaguely worded provisions in line with the previous advice of the Constitutional Council; in fact, the process had created an opportunity for opposition parties to promote one of the most stringent advertising regulations in Europe. This may radically change the logic of the open licensing market, which Finland was scheduled to launch in 2027. The left-wing Alliance of Finland requires extensive restrictions in the future system on lottery advertising, arguing that lottery advertising must be accompanied by health warning signs, similar to the legal requirements for tobacco advertising. More importantly, they proposed a total ban on the broadcasting of lottery advertisements on television and radio, as well as a ban on the sponsorship of sporting and advertising events. The proposal also called for the complete elimination of promotional mechanisms such as bonuses and welcome gift packs, on the grounds that they promoted addiction. Operators warned that too restrictive restrictions would reduce the market attractiveness of legitimate licensees and allow players to continue to flow to unregulated offshore sites, with “reverse effects” in terms of taxation and consumer protection. The controversial term “moderate marketing” in the original Act had also become a central focus. The Constitutional Council has previously stated that such vague expressions are difficult to justify in law. The Administrative Committee recommended that the Ministry of the Interior should be given final interpretation of “compliance marketing”. While closing legal gaps, this has been criticized for increasing regulatory uncertainty in enterprises and for “swaying” future market rules as a result of political changes.

In addition to advertising and marketing provisions, the revised bill also covers key areas such as tax rates, compliance and consumer protection: the lottery rate is set at 25.5 per cent, close to that of the United Kingdom, which is higher than that of Brazil but lower than that of France; the minimum lottery age will be raised to 20; all lottery accounts will need to be double-identify; and players will be subject to a uniform cap on deposits and losses, which will be synchronized with all card-holders if the standards are met. According to the Government ‘ s plan, the reform will open private licence plates only to online lottery operations, and the State monopoly on the online casinos and State lottery remains. The official goal remains “channelization” — to channel players back from unregulated overseas websites to control systems to ensure tax and player protection.

However, industry sources point out that the Finnish State-owned operators themselves recognize that they have lagged behind international competitors in product innovation and technology development in recent years. Reforms that are too conservative may fail to achieve the original purpose of the market return and instead entrench current disadvantages. At present, it remains to be determined whether these restrictive proposals will be adopted in a final vote. While the ruling coalition holds the majority of seats in Parliament, the public health arguments of the opposition are gaining support in public opinion. Finland’s gaming reform is thus in confrontation with two concepts: one advocating “strict regulation to prevent harm” and the other emphasizing “commercial competition for compliance”. Both parties are under the name of “consumer protection” but are divided on the path to achieving it.

Leave a Reply