From licence revocations to major AML fines in the UK and US, and a crackdown on illegal gambling ads in the Netherlands, Lexology PRO analyses gambling enforcement data to identify key risks and trends for businesses.
The data in this article is based on Lexology PRO’s Scanner, our automated regulatory monitoring tool covering 18 regulatory areas and tracking over 1500 regulatory sources. Full details on Scanner’s regulatory coverage can be found here.
Enforcement in this series includes any action regulators have taken as part of their enforcement powers, including active investigations, audits, decisions, fines, penalties, settlements, and/or orders. This report covers data – primarily agency announcements – released between 1 November 2024 and 1 November 2025.
Where did the most enforcement activity come from?
Romania and Sweden recorded a high volume of enforcement actions. The USA and Australia were also active, as was the UK, which issued high fines. Although Latin America saw significantly fewer regulatory interventions, Brazil demonstrated a clear commitment to curbing illicit market activity.
Enforcement approaches varied significantly across jurisdictions. Scanner data shows Romania’s National Gambling Office (ONJN) focused heavily on license revocations while the Swedish Gambling Authority (SGA) relied primarily on fines and warnings.
For some regulators, warnings were a precursor to tougher measures. For example, the Netherlands Gambling Authority (KSA) often started with warnings before escalating to fines.
In Switzerland, the Swiss Federal Gaming Board (SFGB) coordinated raids on venues suspected of illegal casino activity and initiated criminal proceedings against offenders.
Our data indicates that fines were the most prevalent enforcement action globally. These penalties primarily addressed anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) failures, responsible gambling and duty-of-care violations, and illegal advertising.
Significant fines for AML breaches
Failure to conduct customer due diligence
Penalised operators often skipped essential checks on identity and source of funds, leaving them blind to high-risk transactions. Regulators responded forcefully: in the UK, the UKGC imposed fines of £2,022,000 (US$2.5 million) on Spreadex Limited and £1.4 million (US$1.8 million) on AG Communications Limited for failing to conduct enhanced due diligence on high-risk customers.
The SGA also imposed a significant number of fines for these failures, including a 6.5 million kronor (US$676,000) penalty handed down to Betsson Nordic, 5.5 million kronor (US$573,000) issued to Snabbare, and 7 million kronor (US$729,000) imposed on TSG Interactive for failure to operate sufficient customer due diligence procedures.
In December 2024, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) brought its first-ever civil penalty proceeding against Entain’s online betting operations. The regulator alleged multiple AML failures, including not conducting appropriate checks on 17 higher-risk customers.
Inadequate risk assessment and compliance frameworks
Failings weren’t limited to front-end checks. Many operators lacked the backbone of an effective AML program. The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) penalised operators for this, including a CA$1.075 million (US$785,000) fine imposed on the British Columbia Lottery Corporation for failing to develop and apply policies for high-risk clients.
The Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission also imposed a £3,937,500 (US$5,043,000) fine on Celton Manx Limited for several AML failings, including its inability to provide evidence of assessment of its own risk estimations of AML/CTF.
In April 2025, the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) imposed an US$8.5 million fine on MGM Resorts International after regulators uncovered systemic AML deficiencies.
Failure to report suspicious transactions
Reporting obligations were another weak link. FINTRAC imposed a CA$1.175 million (US$857,750) on the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority (SIGA), alleging that the operator failed to submit four suspicious transaction reports. SIGA is appealing against the penalty.
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) reinforced the importance of reporting suspicious transactions in its enforcement action against AG Communications, stating:
“It is essential that operators not only implement and maintain robust anti-money laundering policies, procedures, and controls, but also act swiftly and decisively in response to any indications of suspicious activity.”
Social responsibility failures attracted significant fines
In most jurisdictions, betting operators have a legal obligation to safeguard vulnerable customers, including minors, those affected by mental health challenges or gambling addiction, while promoting responsible play and ensuring that customers gamble within their means. Yet enforcement actions show failures to uphold this duty.
In March 2025, the SGA imposed a fine of 28,000,000 kronor (US$2.58 million) on Glitnor Services Limited for breaching its duty of care by failing to help customers reduce their online gambling, despite clear reasons to intervene.
Marketing and self-exclusion breaches
Self-exclusion breaches were another example of neglecting vulnerable players. In the first enforcement under the National Self-Exclusion Register (NSER) rules, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) found PointsBet had sent over 800 unsolicited gambling-related messages, breaching spam laws and contravening NSER requirements. The operator was required to pay AU$500,800 (US$335,536) in fines.
Failures in gambling advertising further drew regulatory scrutiny. The ACMA, for example, penalised Foxtel Cable Television for failing to include a responsible gambling message, which are required in gambling ads during live sports broadcasts.
The KSA cracked down on influencers and advertising promoting unlicensed gambling and warned BetMGM for using a minor in gambling advertising.
A common theme cuts across these cases: regulators expect operators to actively prevent harm, intervene promptly when harm indicators appear, and ensure marketing practices do not exploit vulnerable players.
Operating illegally
Broadly, operating illegally was a key concern for regulators, especially in the EU. In October 2025, the KSA flagged concerns over the growth of illegal gambling in the Netherlands, following several enforcement actions against operators offering illegal bets, including a weekly fine of €75,000 (US$87,675) capped at €450,000 (US$526,050) on Unibet for repeatedly offering illegal bets.
Romania blacklisted dozens of gambling domains offering remote services without the required licenses. This mirrors enforcement priorities in several US states, where regulators cracked down on offshore and unlicensed operators through cease-and-desist orders and fines.
Site blocking intensified
Blocking access to illegal gambling sites was another key enforcement strategy for regulators worldwide. The Danish Gambling Authority, for example, blocked 178 illegal sites, the highest number since 2012.
Access to thousands of illegal betting sites in Brazil were blocked by the Ministry of Finance in November 2024. The crackdown accelerated in 2025 after the government partnered with the National Telecommunications Agency Brazil (Anatel) to fast-track site blocking, resulting in more than 18,000 illegal domains being taken offline in the past year.
Similarly, Colombia reported blocking 28,000 sites, an uptick linked to new directives aimed at tightening online gambling controls.
Enforcement trends in the US
There were several instances where state regulators made it clear that operators had to prevent underage access and protect vulnerable-player failures or face fines. Pennsylvania, for example, issued a US$30,000 fine on Valley Forge Casino for allegedly allowing a minor to gamble.
States also actively pushed illegal operators out of their markets. Online operators without the right licenses were particularly at risk. The Michigan Gaming Control Board issued several cease-and-desist orders to online gambling operators for targeting residents without the proper licences and Washington sent two separate cease-and-desists to Bovada, for operating without a licence. The Tennessee Sports Wagering Council had previously fined Bovada US$50,000.
Operators further faced scrutiny for illegal marketing tactics, with DraftKings agreeing to return US$3 million to Connecticut consumers after the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) found that the operator violated Connecticut gaming laws relating to advertising and marketing.
What can operators expect in gambling enforcement in 2026 and beyond?
Authorities are expected to intensify their focus on AML failures and social responsibility breaches as essential measures to protect consumers from escalating gambling-related risk.
Gambling operators across Europe can also expect a stronger focus on player protection as the first European standard on markers of harm is finalised and published. This voluntary standard will provide a unified framework for identifying risky gambling behaviours, setting a new benchmark for harm prevention.
Measures aimed at strengthening player safeguards and improving control over deposit limits will take effect in the UK from 30 June 2026. This continued emphasis on consumer protection was emphasised by Alasdair Lamb, senior associate at CMS, who notes:
“The largest penalties and the most frequent enforcement action is still likely to be in respect of AML and safer gambling breaches. Non-compliance in these areas has the greatest potential for direct harm to consumers.”
Likewise in Sweden, consumer protection and AML will “remain central priorities” as sweeping reforms take effect, says Mårten Lindberg, partner at Bird & Bird. This includes a proposed total ban on gambling with credit, which could take effect on 1 April 2026, and laws to replace the current ‘direction criterion’ with a ‘participation criterion’. This would mean that “the Gambling Act applies to any gambling service accessible to Swedish residents, regardless of whether it explicitly targets the Swedish market,” says Lindberg. If enacted, the changes are proposed to enter into force on 1 January 2027.
In the US, Kalshi’s ongoing battles in federal and state courts over whether its event-contract markets fall solely under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)’s jurisdiction or under state gambling laws as well could redefine the regulatory framework for prediction platforms in 2026. A ruling clarifying this boundary may either streamline oversight under a single federal regime or trigger a more fragmented, state-by-state licensing landscape with meaningful operational consequences for operators.